Which Version?

Michael Marlow ( http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html ) has created a website dedicated to the Bible, its texts and versions which is an excellent starting point for anyone wanting to see the basics of any version.Michael has some very strong convictions and he and I have crossed swords occasionally but this site is a wonderful tool for those who want to think about the relative virtues (and/or vices) of different translations.

I think this is going to go wider than just the Amplified so I am going to comment here instead on in the original thread.Greg: From my looking into it and from the conversation here it appears that the 'amplified bible' falls into the category of literal translations.I don't think it does. It is one of a smaller group that I would call expanded translations. The best known of these, other than the Amplified would be, Wuest's Expanded translations. That same site has a description of the Amplified which came out about 5 year later. 1965. Frances E. Siewert, ed., The Amplified Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965. Revised 1987. The New Testament appeared in 1958, the Old Testament in two parts in 1962 and 1964. Revised for the one-volume edition in 1965, and again in 1987. Produced by the Lockman Foundation. This version expands the text with alternative renderings and explanations added in parentheses, brackets, and other typographical devices. If you look at the Dictionary definitions of a word eg power: Strongs: dunamis - force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.Thayer: 1) strength power, ability1a) inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth1b) power for performing miracles1c) moral power and excellence of soul1d) the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth1e) power and resources arising from numbers1f) power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hostsWhat the expanded versions do is to try to leave nothing out. So effectively they leave you to make the choice. The Amplified is putting into the text what another version might put into the margin. The purpose of the paraphrases was to capture the whole sense of a sentence rather than just the words.Youngs Literal Translation: for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. (Joh 3:16 YLT)The Message:"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. (Joh 3:16 MSG)Actually The Message makes more 'sense' here than Young's. A first-language English speaker would have to process Young's Literal before he understood it. In fact an absolutely literal translation would bein this way because loved the God the world thus the Son His the only begotten He gave in order that all the believing (ones)into HIm not be destroyed but to hold life age-enduring Now try getting your Sunday School class to memorize that! This verse is almost unintelligable unless we make it less literal. The whole problem is 'how less literal'. Modern linguists would say that what I have done above is not a translation at all, and they dislike the distinction between literal (word for word)and dynamic (sense for sense). If you were asked to translate 'respondex s'il vous plait' into English and you translated it 'reply if it you pleases' your French teacher would mark it 'wrong'. He would say it means 'please reply'. This is the question that all Bible tranlsators have to try to answer. 'do I say what it says or what it means'. Every translation will include an element of 'what it means' even the most literal. It's all a question of degree.The get the meaning of the words, which is vital for thorough Bible study, we need something closer to the literal translation. But to get the flowing sense of whole paragraphs, which is also necessary, a paraphrase can be useful. The problem is that you will get much more of the translators' theology with the latter than with the former.It is important that while holding to the verbal inspiration of scripture we also remember that it is 'all scripture' that has been God breathed and not isolated parts of it. There is micro inspiration in every word, there is macro inspiration in whole books. Amy Carmichael used to say she believed that every translation revealed facets of truth; I think she was probably right. I used to teach foreign students, ten at a time, around a large table. I insisted that they all use a NKJV version and their own first-language version. I would often ask them to translate their version for the benefit of the other students. Often their versions would highlight the very point I wanted to make. (This is a good thing to remember if you are preaching through interpreters. You may spend 10 minutes extricating the truth from your KJV which stands in clear view in their version)With some of my work with people with learning disabilities I have used a version originally created for the deaf. (sounds strange but the 'deaf' version used very few personal pronouns; it repeats the name of the speaker or doer. This makes it easier to keep track of the actors in the story for both deaf and learning disabled folk)For my personal preference I use my KJV but for study I use, heavily, the ASV, Darby, Youngs. I have tried but been disappointed with... the list is endless!

With all these translations to chose from I sometimes think it would easier for us to learn New Testament Greek! ;-) Seriously though what I would say to someone who does not know which translation to chose from is that is it a very important decision to make.

Seriously though what I would say to someone who does not know which translation to chose from is that is it a very important decision to make.My standard answer would probably be the NKJV. When folk ask me what I think of it I usually say; 'it is an excellent introduction to the KJV' :-P There is another element in Versions which I have not addressed here. It is much more complicated; the families of texts behind the different versions.

It appears by purusing through this fellows site that he is not a fan of the textus receptus.No, he's not. He has made up his mind on most topics.This is the level of thinking that we have among the mindless defenders of the "complete" text in the Textus Receptus. It is grossly irresponsible for Thomas Nelson Publishers to exploit and encourage such ignorance for private gain."Marlowe does admit, somewhere, that he is not a textual expert/scholar. This site will not leave you in any doubt as to the convictions of its owner, but there is some great stuff here for those who are interested in the area of study.

Hi Ron, I would be keen to learn about the different families of manuscripts, please continue. :-)

I am personally a fan of the 'textus receptus' but I would love to hear Ron's thoughts also on the different streams of thought on this.This is an enormously complicated topic to attempt in one of these threads. One of the issues, I think, about addressing it would be that folks who were not able to follow the details of the argument could very easily be stumbled by the bits they did understand. I think it would be best to provide some links and then interested folks (both of you ;-)) could ask questions.I am a competant amateur in these things but no more than that. I understand sufficient of the theories to listen to the proponents and make my own decision, which is pretty much the same as yours Greg.Here is an excerpt from Maurice Robinson:For over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.[6] This undisputed bulk of the text reflects a common pre-existing archetype (the autograph), which has universal critical acceptance. In the remaining one-fifth of the Greek New Testament, the Byzantine/Majority Textform represents the pattern of readings found in the Greek manuscripts predominating during the 1000-year Byzantine era. Early printed editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a general agreement with the Byzantine-era manuscripts upon which they were based. Such manuscripts and early printed editions are commonly termed "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" documents, based upon the term applied to the Elzevir 1624 printed Greek edition. Other editions commonly termed "Textus Receptus" include the editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598. George Ricker Berry has correctly noted that "in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus."

Gonna hafta agree with Krispy here. I too believe the T.R. is the inspired word of God, but I will go one step further than he and say that I believe the KJV is the inspired ENGLISH TRANSLATION, of that word. 8-)

I guess what I mean by that is to say that I believe that the KJV is what God WANTED us to get out of the greek originally.When some people come along and say "it says 'this' in the greek but 'that' in the K.J.V. (implying some difference), I don't jive with it. That's THEIR translation...THEIR word...not the one God intended for us to have, IMO.And yes, Krispy, you know me from R.R. The old fundamentalist crowd there, remember?

This thread is interesting to me as I have become somewhat upset as our pastor seems to think that The Message is a TRANSLATION of the Bible. Often he reads a passage that sounds only vaguely like the verse in my Bible and then, sure enough, it came out of The Message. I don't think The Message is heretical, but it is a PARAPHRASE, not a translation from the Greek. The two should not be confused. A paraphrase is always going to have a spin on it from the paraphraser. The Message can be read like a novel, but not used to really study the Bible.I like the NIV myself. I also really like the KJV. I don't think there is such a thing as an "inspired translation" of the Bible. This is because I don't think God would give an inspired translation to one language and not another. Do you think that there is an "inspired" translation of the Chinese Bible? Of the Mongolian Bible? And what about the Bible that someone is translating for the first time into some tribal language? How would they know if that is the "inspired" translation or not. It is easy for those of us who have grown up with the KJV to hold it up as THE Bible, but the level of difficulty it poses to some readers really should be taken into consideration. That is why the NKJV and NIV are also good. Keep in mind that English has changed relatively little over the years since the KJV was written. In some countries, the older translations of the Bible are truly unintelligible to today's readers. For example, the older translation of the Chinese Bible really is not understandable to your average Chinese today, because of changes in the script and in the vocabulary. Would we hold them to the same standard?

This thread is interesting to me as I have become somewhat upset as our pastor seems to think that The Message is a TRANSLATION of the Bible. Often he reads a passage that sounds only vaguely like the verse in my Bible and then, sure enough, it came out of The Message. I don't think The Message is heretical, but it is a PARAPHRASE, not a translation from the Greek. The two should not be confused. A paraphrase is always going to have a spin on it from the paraphraser. The Message can be read like a novel, but not used to really study the Bible.This is all to do with philosophies of translation. If your French teacher asks you what the phrase 'respondez s'il vous plait' means and you answer 'reply if it you pleases' he will say your answer is wrong. He will say you have not translated the phrase only the words. Translators all have their own philosophy of translation. The possibilities stretch from extreme 'dynamic equivalence' which is The Message end of the spectrum to 'literal equivalence' which is at the other end. A thoroughly 'literal equivalence' would be unintelligible. "in this way for loved the God the world so that the son his the only-born he_gave in order that all the believing_ones into him not should_be_destroyed but have life age-lasting" is John 3:16 using extreme 'literal dynamic' philosophy.All translations are somewhere on this line between 'dynamic equivalence' and 'literal equivalence'. God inspired the actual words, but He also inspired the sense of the words, so a translator has the task of communicating both micro-inspiration (every word) and macro-inspiration (the whole book or letter). Linguists don't usually use the word 'paraphrase'. They speak rather of 'literal' or 'freer' translation. In its philosophy of translation the KJV, coming mostly from William Tyndale, is closer to 'literal equivalence' than The Message.Let me confess... I am not supposed to like The Message; it is contrary to what I think a translation ought to be but I find again and again that, while I could never use The Message as my devotional or study Bible, it scores 'direct hits' on aspects of truth hidden from many 'better' translations. Actually, The Message is a translation from the Greek; it's just that it is a dynamic equivalence or free translation. Amy Carmichael believed that all versions revealed unique facets of truth; I think she was right.The KJV has another philosophy at work which is subtle but unhelpful. The translators based their work on Tyndale but constantly altered biblical concepts to support monarchy and official appointments. This means that the KJV is really a hostile witness when we come to trying to understand the nature of spiritual authority in the scripture. The KJV was a political exercise in bringing conformity to a diverse Christian belief in the kingdom. King James was a clever but unlikeable character, and his first act in the translating of the KJV was to removed the 'extreme' Catholics and Anabaptist elements from the translation committee. At its very inception the KJV was designed as a compromise.Nevertheless, for all its weaknesses, I still read and preach from my KJV although I frequently 're-translate' to bring out points which would otherwise be lost. And yes, where necessary, I will 'correct' the KJV from the original words of Paul which were God-breathed. The KJV is good and has been wonderfully owned of God, but it is not God-breathed.

On the subject of the message, i have to admit, i have a bit of a problem with it as well. I manage a Christian bookstore, however we are a lot more picky and discerning of what product we carry--that is why we are small, we carry quality titles not the latest "craze" or "slef help trend"--not to get carried away on that particualr tanget---The biggest problem for me is the quotes on the back of this "bible" endorsing it. One quote inparticuar is from Bono the front man for a secular rock group U2. does anyone else see a problem with someone in secular media reading this "bible" and remain unconvicted, unchallenged enough to turn around and advocate it? I'm not saying that sinners can't read the Bible or that they should not--the point is that this rock star read it--and it did not produce a change yet to help promote it they have used his name--a name heavily recognized in rock and roll media--to sell the "word". Gimme a break.

"The Message" makes my skin crawl. I have absolutely no desire to read a single word from it's pages, much less spend God's money to own it.As it happens you can get it without paying anything as a module on the e-sword bible programme. How do you know so much about it without reading it?In my humble opinion, anyone who owns "The Message" is open to spiritual peril. It's an interesting opinion at any rate, and you are free to have it. I wonder if you have studied the history of Bible translation?I use the KJV as my foundation for all my Bible study; as I have often said on these pages it is a temporary expedient... just until I can get something better. :-) Take a look at these two translations;"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. (Joh 3:16 MSG)"in this way for loved the God the world so that the son his the only-born he_gave in order that all the believing_ones into him not should_be_destroyed but have life age-lasting" (Joh 3:16 absolutely literal translation - Ron Bailey!)If you found a man breathing his last breaths, which version would you quote to him? In fact The Message has caught something missing from every other version I know; the fact that eternal life is not just longer but better. The life of the ages; is not just quantitively better, it is qualitively better. Eternal life is not just longer; it is God's life... that brings our spiritual death to an end and makes us whole again.BTW this is almost a novel experience for me. I have spent my life on the other side of this argument! ;-)

The issue isnt about which "translation" (or in some cases which paraphrase) we like... it is all about the manuscripts that the translation is based on.No, it's not. There are two factors which affect the translation. One is the translation philosophy of the translators and the other is the manuscripts from which they started their work. Tyndale, Geneva and the King James, the New King James are based on the Byzantine family of manuscripts, while the ASV family of the English RV, American SV, NASV, was heavily based on the the Western Texts represented by the Sinai and Vatican codices. The NASV is not so extreme as the ASV in this.The ASV however has the clearest 'literal equivalence' of all well known translations. This produces an effect where the OT ASV is an excellent version and a great study aid. No serious Bible student should be without it; it is freely available in most Bible software.The ASV disadvantage is that is it the version which exhibits the most extreme dependence on the Western Texts. So you end up with a Bible that for the OT is quite brilliant but for the NT is not nearly so useful. I did a chart some time back of where the different version fit it; I'll see if I can find it.

Wow, Ron! Thanks! You are extremely helpful with this sort of thing, I must say.I didn't know that The Message IS a translation from the Greek (albeit a freer one). Let me clarify that reading The Message is an interesting experience and can be helpful in ways that other translations are not. I guess my problem with it is when pastors PREACH from it. I think it can be confusing to believers looking up things in their Bibles that are worded so differently (even if the overriding thought is the same) from what is on the page of the good old NIV in front of them. Also, for regular study, it is probably better to have a bit more of a literal translation.Your comments on the KJV are also interesting. It just goes to show that no translation is perfect. I tend to like the KJV when reading the Psalms and Prophets--the poetic translation is really unbeatable--but for the rest, I prefer the NIV. What manuscripts is the NIV based on? It seems to be several different ones, since occasionally the footnotes will note when something is slightly different "in older manuscripts".Phebe

BUT... the Byzantine and the Western Texts (often referred to as the Alexandrian School of manuscripts) differ from each other so drastically, one of them has to be wrong, or they are both wrong... but they cant be both right.How good is your Greek, krispy? Are you saying what you know or what you have read? Textual criticism has been a minor hobby of mine and it you want to take that route I need to know what level we are working at.I am a supporter of Byzantine priority, but we must remember that the variations in the Western Texts do not substantially affect any Christian doctrine. I can find enough gospel to preach in the NASV, even though it is heavily biased towards the Western Texts. If I am talking to someone who uses an NIV or an NASV, I am willing to start where they are. Sometimes half a loaf is better than no bread.What I am arguing for here is sensible moderation. The notion that a copy of The Message hidden in one of my many boxes may open me up to spiritual attack is just not sensible.

Okay, this is seriously about to go over my head, so let me just get a couple of things straight before it does. :)So, Ron, the NIV is from the Western Texts, I assume? And these are manuscripts that were found much later? Hence the footnotes in the NIV about "older manuscripts"? The Byzantine ones are the ones that were copied and handed down, right?Now, from my own small knowledge of this subject, it is not a point of contention, but a point to prove the trustworthiness of the Bible. We've all heard people say, "The Bible has been handed down for so many generations that it cannot possibly be anywhere close to what the original said." I thought that the more recent discovery of various Bible texts proved the authenticity of the Bible because they were practically the same as the ones we had had for several hundred years. Yes, there were very minor differences (those "older manuscript" footnotes appear very seldom in the NIV), but it was essentially the same. I think that God used the more recent discoveries to prove Himself rather than as heresy.On a more practical note, I don't see where it makes much difference. I admittedly know no Greek at all, but I have many scriptures memorized in NIV and in KJV that I can think of right now, and they are essentially the same. In fact, I have trouble not mixing the two, as they are so similiar. Are we splitting hairs here?In my opinion, the main difference to the common reader of the NIV would be the footnotes noting differences or possible other interpretations of certain words. I think this adds to the translation rather than taking from it. Historically speaking, an older piece of writing (more close to the actual event) is usually considered more reliable, so at least a nod in the older manuscripts direction is warranted. Besides, I always took it as the translators were laying it all out in the open and saying that they weren't sure of the exact translation of certain words, etc, when that was the case.Is the NIV really "half a loaf"?!

um I have a question. should we not concern ourselves more with the spirit behind the version of the bible rather than which school or greek/hebrew translated it and from what manuscript? I mean is it not the Holy Spirit that teaches and ministers to us concerning the bible? I'm sure that there are some fake bibles versions out there that have been influenced by the enemy to deceive and perhaps some of them appear as good as any.just curious

Where's that popcorn smiley they're so fond of over on R.R.For what it's worth, of course I think you're right on (as usual). I've heard some sermons/studies about current Bible versions and have seen enough and know enough about our enemy to realize that he DOSE INDEED have ample reason to want to change the Word of God.It has NEVER been Satan's way to show up in a room and shout "BOO" to scare people. He doesn't work in ways that are obvious. Rather subtlety is his tactic and he is better at it than anyone on this earth can possibly imagine. His way is not to to stab you quickly and shockingly, but he can slip a blade into your ribs so slowly and stealthily that you won't feel it until your heart stops.

Is the NIV really "half a loaf"?!No, and I apologise for the illustration. I simply meant that things which are 'imperfect' as we may judge them may still serve our purpose.So, Ron, the NIV is from the Western Texts, I assume? And these are manuscripts that were found much later? Hence the footnotes in the NIV about "older manuscripts"? The Byzantine ones are the ones that were copied and handed down, right?I knew I should have stayed out of this conversation! This is such a tangled topic. When the NIV footnotes say 'older manuscripts' they are referring to two main manuscripts; the Sinai Codex (a codex is a document in book form rather than scrolls or pieces) and the Vatican Codex have family characteristics. The Vatican was long known but the Sinai was salvaged from a wastepaper basket in a monastery on Mt Sinai; hence its name. These are among the most complete, full versions of the New Testament. (all this topic is only NT btw) They have been dated to the 4th century. So they are the oldest complete New Testaments that we have. This is what the NIV margin is telling you. But there is an implication behind the footnote that oldest must mean best. Some versions will actually say 'better mss say...'. This is not necessarily true. The physical age of the mss is not the only issue. How many steps were there between Paul's original letter to the Galatians and the copy in the Sinai codex? There could be hundreds. But I might have a copy of a Bible from the 10th Century which is actually a first copy of a 1st century copy.Do you know Chinese whispers. As the message goes around the circle it is likely to get more alterations, but if someone at position 20 in the circle went back to the beginning person and heard the messagefrom them they might actually get a more accurate version than the person at position 19. So your NIV believes that older means better.There are thousands of Bible mss, and when they are compared scholars see differences from one to the next. However these differences can be gathered into families where they all have the same differences, if you follow my meaning. The largest 'family' of mss which have the same kind of text is called the Byzantine text. It is sometimes called the Majority text. For many centuries the Byzantine text was THE text of the church. The vernacular bibles of the 16th century, Luther, Tyndale were pretty much translated from the Byzantine family texts. (this is oversimplified, but I'm trying to keep this fairly simply).In the 19th century the Vatican codex was made more available, and the Sinai codex was discovered. Two scholars, Westcott and Hort, began to try to work out, from the differences, the 'history' of the Bible text. They decided that at a point in history the copyists had followed inferior text (with more errors) this, they said had resulted in the enormous quantities of the Byzantine family text. They concluded that the Sinai and Vatican codices were representatives of a more reliable texts. In particular they had almost a veneration for the Vatican codex.Westcott & Hort produced a 'new' Greek text which they believed must have been closest to the originals. They believed that the Vatican was the most reliable, so in some Bible where it says 'better mss say...' they really mean the Vatican and Sinai codices. From the 'new Greek text' came the English RV of 1881 and the ASV in 1901. They were both excellent 'translations' in that they tried to produce a 'word for word' translation (dynanic equivalence). The problem was they were basing their translation on a different family of text.Over the years successive translators have reviewed Westcott and HOrt's work and decided that they were too extreme so they have tried again to work out what they think the original text was. They have gathered their information from several families of texts so their final text is called an 'eclectic' (meaning gathered out from) text. The NIV is based on a different Greek text to both the KJV and the ASV. This text had moved back somewhat from the Westcott and Hort text but is still not the text behind the KJV.I think Westcott and Hort were wrong to put such confidence in the Vatican codex. The translators of the NIV think the same. I have more confidence in the Byzantine texts than does the NIV. I hyperlinked to Byzantine primacy in an earlier posting. You need quite a bit of background to understand it, but it looks at the reasons behind Westcott & Horts decisions and provides very solid reason against all of them.I think that's enought for this post!

The Alexandrian text claims to be the oldest. We really have no proof of this, only the word of the Roman Catholic Church. We do know they came from Alexandria Egypt... which 2,000 years ago was a hotbed of heretical teaching, especially the gnostic religion.The Received Text has it's roots with the church in Antioch, which was the church that sent Paul out on his missionary ventures. The Received Text can be traced all down thru the last 2,000 years. It was the basis for the Bibles used by the Waldenses, the Reformers, Whycliff, Tyndale... the KJV.As I said, I believe in Byzantine supremacy and am a KJV user, however, you are not serving our cause by these kind of statements; almost all of which are inaccurate. The Alexandrian text, of course, does not claim to be the oldest, although others would make that claim for it. There is, of course, no evidence to say that the RT had its roots in Antioch, nor that it can be traced all down through the last 2000 years.A serious case can be made for the primacy of the Byzantine text form, but you are not making it. We don't need to denigrate the NIV to make our point, we can just point to the excellences of the KJV.

Wow! where have I been for this thread?Say Bro. Ron, What is the most accurate Greek and Hebrew Lexicon I can use? I have a couple and don't know which one is the most accurate. I also have e-sword if there is a module for it. Still looking for a way to do a good Englishman's serch in the LXX. :-?God Bless,-Robert

Krispy,With all due respect, I wasn't saying that I was confused about which version I should use, nor that I was deceived. I am perfectly happy with my NIV and intend to stick with it. See Ron's post.I don't believe that it is in God's character to let His word be so tainted. Do you really think that God would just sit by and watch the majority of Bible-believing Christians use an erroneous version of His Word? I think not. I know not.My personal experience with KJV-only is that it tends to be a very dividing thing. Something that God certainly does not want. My parents had an experience with two tiny churches (same denomination, incidentally) where one believed in KJV only and the other did not. The two churches were always quarreling and being exclusive about KJV or non-KJV. Once my little sister (11 years old) brought her NIV Bible to the KJV-only church and everyone was upset over it. Can you imagine? Ron, thanks for the history. It really does make sense now. You're good at that. I feel very comfortable now with my NIV since it was the "middle of the road" version. It's good to konw about the differences, however slight or insignificant.Phebe

I don't believe that it is in God's character to let His word be so tainted. Do you really think that God would just sit by and watch the majority of Bible-believing Christians use an erroneous version of His Word? I think not. I know not.phebebirdthis is an interesting comment, as it is exactly the argument used by people like me in support of the Received Text! I would personally recommend that you use something like the New KJV as a comparison (if you can't cope with the old KJV).The translation philosophy of the NIV is much more liberal than the KJV. I have a simple test for any version of the scripture. There are 3 verses to look at...1. Acts 20:28 if this says 'church of God' and hence refers to 'the blood of God' it is taking the Received Text seriously.2.1 Tim 3:16 if this says 'God was manifest in the flesh' it is taking the Received Text very seriously.3. Romans 6:6 if it doesn't say 'our old man' you are reading a version which is prepared to interprete rather than translate; this is ominous.How does the NIV do on this? It uses the Received Text in the first two but puts comments into its footnotes, but on the Romans it has decided it knows what Paul meant and has given you its opinion. I would prefer Paul's opinion! ;-) For myself I need the 'thees and thous'; not for their poetic quality but because 'thee' is quite different to 'you' in both Hebrew and Greek, and I feel that using them makes me sensitive to personal and corporate truth. That means I really only have the KJV and the ASV to choose from. The ASV is much more consistent than the KJV; I like the way it refers to Spirit in the NT rather than 'ghost', I like its use of the proper name Jehovah where the KJV will have LORD. Its verbs and prepositions translation is much more accurate than the KJV, it is slightly less 'office' orientated that the KJV, its OT translation (I think) is the best OT translation ever) BUT the NT is heavily dependent on that Vatican mss, which I distrust passionately!

Hi Krispy,Proove me wrong. I can handle it. Seems like I made a statement like that to Bro. Ron once and needed a helmet. :-) :-) Of well, I'm interested in hearing how it plays out. I never studied the texts that deep myself.God Bless,-Robert

However, looking at the last chapter of Mark, the NIV footnotes would have us believe the last half of that chapter does not exist in the "older and more reliable manuscripts" (the Alexandrian text) ... however, the second generation church fathers often referred to that last half of the last chapter of Mark in their writings... 200 years before the Alexandrian Text supposedly dates to.We have the Sinai Codex (4th century)here in the British Museum. (We also have the Alexandrinus Codex - 5th century 8-))I have had my nose 6 inches from the page! The ending of Mark is missing the verses, but there is space exactly the right size where you would have expected it to be. The space was obviously left while the scribe decided whether or not to put the verses in, which means he certainly knew about them and was perhaps waiting for instructions as to whether or not to add them.You don't have to convince me of the priority of the Byzantine text, nor the weaknesses of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.Please provide me with a list of documented instances of the second generation church fathers 'often references' to Mark's last verses.And the RT does have it's roots in the Bible believing church down thru the last 2000 years. Thats a fact.If there was an unbroken chain of mss from Biblical Antioch to the present day we wouldn't be having this conversation, and statements don't become facts just because you say them louder. ;-) "Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032" Maurice Robinson.I hope you can see that this quotation from the leader of the Byzantine priority camp shows that Byzantine textual evidence is 4th Century at the very earliest. This means a gap of 3 centuries in between your church at Antioch and the first evidence.The full introductory quotation hereIntroduction1. From the beginning of the modern critical era in the nineteenth century the Byzantine Textform has had a questionable reputation. Associated as it was with the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text "late and secondary," due both to the relative age of the extant witnesses which provide the majority of its known support and to the internal quality of its readings as subjectively perceived. Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032.12. Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner.2 Rather, the Byzantine Textform is the form of text which is known to have predominated in the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century.3 The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission. Various attempts have been made in this direction, postulating either the "AD 350 Byzantine recension" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort,4 or the current "process" view promulgated by modern schools of eclectic methodology.5 Yet neither of these explanations sufficiently accounts for the phenomenon, as even some of their own prophets have declared. also makes the important disctinction between the Byzantine Textform and the TR (Received Text).

"When the New Testament canon is established, the churches at Ephesus and Antioch (Acts 11:19-26) begin to make faithful copies of these Bibles, sending them out with their missionaries to all parts of the earth so that the world might know that the Messiah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, had come to purchase the salvation of all mankind with His own blood. This then becomes the Received Text of the church.Sheer speculation and the Byzantine Textform is not synomimous with the Received Text, see other posting.

I highly recommend that you download (it's FREE) a message given by Chuck Smith (Calvary Chapel) on this topic. I am sure Chuck Smith is a faithful man of God whose life and ministry have been richly blessed to many, but this is not his field and there are many inaccuracies in this address. He similary equates the Byzantine Textform with the Received Text. I would heartily recommend that you try to read the Maurice Robinson paper on Byzantine Priority.Chuck accuses Origen of manipulating the scriptures; again this is sheer speculation. However, in his closing words...I am not, what you would call, a King James only advocate. I do believe that the best study bible is the KJ. I have the NIV, RSV, Moffatts… many different translations and in my study I refer to these translations because a lot of times they give to you an alternate kind of a reading ie they will give you another word that will sometimes give you a better understanding of the text, but I study out of and I use as a study bible the KJV because I do believe that, in reality, that the Received Text is closer to the actual original text than the Alexandrian. I am concerned about the many deletions in the modern of which today I gave you only a few. We don’t have time nor would it be worthwhile to look at the hundreds of changes that some of them are very subtle, some of them are very blatant. Changes that have been made in the text that usually have to do with the diminishing of the authority of the word of God, or the diminishing of the person of Jesus Christ. And so I would recommend King James as a study bible and the others only as something to refer to if you have a particular with the KJ translation and you want to get another slant on the verse then the other Bibles can oftentimes give you a little insight and a slant on the verses. So that’s where I stand....and I can stand right by his side.I repeat, that I am agreeing with your conclusions but your evidence is much too simplistic.

I enjoy reading from a number of different versions, even the Cotton Patch Version on occasion. I believe it's good to not lean on any one translation but to compare and most importantly to ask and be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit in any version that we read.I believe there are probably minor errors in all the english translations which is one more reason that it is probably a good idea to cross reference. If you can find the unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ in them then they are from God, I don't think we should let differences in manuscripts prevent us from using easier to read translations. Certainly Satan doesn't need new translations to pervert the Word of God, he's been doing that since long before the eyewitnesses of the gospel died.Such a devisive topic, I think we would all be better off if we had as much concern over lost souls as we do over what Bible others read.In Christ,Ron

I'm assuming this was not in response to my post about the church fathers. That is far from simplistic.I am still waiting for your examples.I'm just a hillbilly from the Blue Ridge Mountains... my grandfather ran moonshine. I'm a simple kinda guy, and I like it that way.I am more simple than you can imagine but we are dealing with 'brain surgery' here and we can't approximate.

(Thats not to say that every church that uses the KJV is correct about everything, or doesnt go over the edge on some doctines... but for the most part... KJV churches tend to be extremely solid doctrinally. Conversely, I'm also NOT saying that if a church uses an NIV they are cult. Please take time to understand my point.)Yes, I understand what you are not saying. All the cults actually started off with the KJV but I don't think that proves anything either. My very first Bible, a KJV, was bought at the front door from a JW.I do believe the mss families are important that is why I have spent a fair amount of time trying to understand the issue. I do base most of my studies on the KJV, but as Chuch says ...I would recommend King James as a study bible and the others only as something to refer to if 1. you have a particular problem with the KJ translation and 2. you want to get another slant on the verse then the other Bibles can oftentimes give you a little insight and a slant on the verses. So that’s where I stand.He has an NIV in his study and a Moffat!! Do you think he is in spiritual danger?

Thats an interesting statement since the JW's Bible is NOT the KJV, but the New World (I believe it's called), and it is almost 100% based on the Wescott & Hort. That must have been a renegade JW.Depends which century you're working in!"The entire work was originally published in 6 volumes, from 1950 to 1960. While the first volumes contained marginal references and footnotes, the revised one-volume edition, published in 1961, contained neither. A second revision was released in 1970, and a third revision, with footnotes, was produced in 1971. It was again revised in 1984."They have only used the New World Translation since the 1960s!!

edited.

Did you completely by-pass my extensive thread??I bought my KJV from them in 1953; I was 11.

You've got to be kidding me... Well, if you can read that and not see any references, then I am afraid your mind is made up and I'm wasting my time. I do appreciate the sword fight tho... keeps my debating techniques limber.What I mean is that these quotations are not tied absolutely to Byzantine textform references. The early church fathers are known rather for their following of the Western textform as distinct from the Alexandrian. The best known representative of the Western textform is the Codex Beza which, according to my understanding has the whole of Mark 16. The Alexandrian textform represented by the Vatican and Sinai codices omits the verses. The Byzantine textform, of course, has them.Irenaeus’ quotes are usually reckoned to be evidence of his access to the Western textform rather than the Byzantine.There are some very informative pages on the wikipaedia. These are the views of different people and I would not affirm any of them, but for anyone who is struggling with the various terms some hyperlinking around these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_text-type will give you a feel for the field.Generally the Western textform is longer (expanded)than the Byzantine textform, while the Alexandrian is (reduced) shorter than the Byzantine. sorry can't get the link to work, try googling on (wikipedia "western text-type")

I made the comment that the writings of early church fathers prooves that the omitted verses in the Alexandrian Texts (the Vatican and Sinai codices) actually did predate the Alexandrian Texts, and also imply that the omitted verses were in the original autographs. You claimed that hasnt been proven... I believe I've shown that it has.This would only be true if you could prove that those quotes came from the Byzantine textform rather than the Western textform.You haven't shown me that eg Irenaeus got his info from the Byzantine textform. It seems much more likely that he got it from the Western Textform. He certainly didn't get it from the Alexandrian textform. I'm not even sure whether you understand the difference between the Western and Alexandrian textforms. I'm not sure whether you understand that the Byzantine textform is not the same thing as the Textus Receptus.

I knew I should have stayed out of this conversation! Bro. Ron , please don't stop .I say little but read alot and enjoy both your insight and dry english humor.Did I say that? God Bless

I knew I should have stayed out of this conversation! Bro. Ron , please don't stop .I say little but read alot and enjoy both your insight and dry english humor.Did I say that? God BlessHi dohzmanThis is really such a convoluted topic that it really does need very careful consideration and moderate statements. I am not an expert on these things but I have sufficient background to be able to understand the experts. :-) Robinson and Pierpoint have made a tremendous contribution to this debate by careful and measured work. They have produced a Greek text which is solidly based on the Byzantine textform with scholarly precision which even their greatest opponents cannot deny.There are some topics that fair quite well in street corner debates with memorable 'sound bites' but Textual Criticism (lower not higher criticism) is not one of them. This topic needs calm reflection, otherwise we shall be 'laughed out of court'. This has really been the burden of my contributions to this thread. If the topic is 'dumbed down' we shall leave our opponents with easy targets and our allies with a bad conscience.I think my humour is an 'acquired taste' and some may never acquire it, or wish to! I often wish folks could see my face while I write. It is mischievous and teasing rather than penetrating. I use it as seasoning and everyone's taste for seasoning is different. (Greg's san diego pigeons had me chuckling for ages) This site is amazing; we have amazing resources here at our fingertips... and photos of two pigeons with their back firmly set against the photographer. :-D But I guess that's life, soaring aspirations that lift you to heaven and a pigeon or two. :-)

Hi RobertSay Bro. Ron, What is the most accurate Greek and Hebrew Lexicon I can use? I have a couple and don't know which one is the most accurate. I also have e-sword if there is a module for it. Still looking for a way to do a good Englishman's serch in the LXX.Hulsey and others may have more up to date comments on this. I am using old resources which I freshen up with occasional reference to online things. I'm a little like an old carpenter with a few tools become shiny with use. There are some great power-tools now available and I use them as I am able.The standard resources I used for years were things like Wigrams Greek Concordance number coded to Strongs English concordance. Before Baker Bible house linked these things with number codes I was a much longer process. I would sometimes spend hours copying out every use of a Greek word in verse contexts. I would then sit and just read the texts, allowing the sense of the word to wash over me. My theory was this is how we learn language anyway, but constant use and observation. I would then try to create my own definition of the Greek word and then try it in each text; then tweak as necessary!Number coding meant I could do this a hundred times faster than tracing the Greek words and roots. Baker Bible house also number coded Thayer Grimm's Greek Lexicon. Thayer was a unitarian but as long as you remember this it is still a powerful tool. I would sit with half a dozen of these massive tomes around my desk, until Computer Bible Programmes emerged. I was one of the earliest UK users of the Online Bible and did some trials for Larry Pierce with blind computer users.Pierce's use of the Strongs numbers for individual Greek words was brilliant, and it probably still the most accurate. He was a precision worker. This meant that instead of tracking down the Greek word from the English and then starting a search for all uses of the Greek word in my Wigram, I could simply search on a Strong's number code by the side of the English translation and instantly get a list of every time that Greek word had been used. Strongs numbers and computer programmes opened up a whole world to people with no Greek at all. Pierce later added 'parsing' to the Greek computer texts; showing the exact part of speech, tense, mood and voice of the verbs. Most of these things can be found in one form or another with other Bible Programmes. Currently I am using e-sword and finding it very useful for my current working needs. Occasionally it is not precise enough and then I go back to my Online Bible.This is where I would do most of my LXX work. I can put on screen, the LXX Greek text, an English translation, and the OT in English, usually the KJV with Strongs numbers for the this exercise. The Greek text has Strongs numbers and parsing. I can then click on search on the Strongs number and it will provide me with a complete list of that words usage from both the Greek OT (LXX) and the Greek NT. As the LXX was really the 'KJV' of the early church this can really open up some very interesting study themes. eg. to search on 'ekklesia' (the word translated 'church' in the KJV, but really meaning 'a called out assembly') will show how familiar the disciples already were with the concept of 'ekklesia' and the shocking implications of Christ's use of the term.I also use the Perseus online version of the Scott and Liddell Greek lexicon. This is useful because it will give me classical Greek references to the word as used by non-biblical Greek authors. You have to exercise caution here because biblical Greek is not classical Greek, but it can sometimes be a little window which brings light onto the topic.As with Textual Criticism I am really not at all an expert on these things, but I can understand the experts and my Greek is good enough for me to know how weak it is, so I am very cautious in using it. My methodology has always been what I call 'hunches'. I will be reading something in the scriptures and associations will take place somewhere in the jumble of all the information in my mind. I will heard to mutter, "I wonder if..." Then I use my tools.Anyone familiar with the books mentioned above will know that I am using tools which are over a hundred years old, but they have never been bettered which is one very strong reason for using the KJV as a basis for this kind of in depth bible study. I am sure there will be modern equivalents and others might be able to review them for us. I have commented from time to time on some of these older ones in the Book Review forum.Although the opposite is often said, linguistics has seen amazing progress in the last 50 years or so, but it is still the philosophy of translation which causes many difficulties. We do have some amazing tools now available for in depth Bible study but tools are dangerous things when in the wrong hands. If you put together a craftsman and good tools he should be able to produce fine work. A craftsman will be able to produce good work without the latest tools, but an apprentice may rely too much on the latest tools and never acquire the skill of his master.The problem with computerised bible study tools is that they can produce wagon loads of information instantly, but information is not revelation, and data is not truth. We need to spend time just letting the scriptures wash over us in gentle mediation; this is a great antidote to the knowledge overload.

Point being... western, eastern, alexandrian... if these gentlement knew the apostles, or at the least knew older folks who knew the apostles... dont you think they could have been quoting right directly from the apostles own handwriting? I'm not saying they did... I'm asking if you know they didnt?Polycarp was a disciple or convert of John. The early church fathers were writing almost 100 years after the death of Paul and Peter. Irenaeus never claimed personal contact with the first apostles; neither would any of the others. In 2 Peter Peter already recognised Paul's letters as scripture so I have no doubt that people would copy them.No, I don't know they didn't but negatives are impossible to prove logically. Is there any evidence at all that they did? None that I am aware of.sAs to what text format the church fathers were quoting from... since they came on the heels of the apostles (within 100 years), and they came from the same region (and from what I understand, they probably came from the church in Antioch) ... then do you think that they may have been quoting from a 1st generation copy of the original autographs written by Paul and the other apostles? Who's to say they werent quoting directly from the orginal letters and books of the apostles? Is there any proof to say they werent?sThis notion, that the church at Antioch had a manuscript copying ministry is new to me and I have no idea what evidence lies behind it; I have seen none quoted. The early church fathers came from many different areas so I can't get a grip on this line of reasoning.'on the heels' ...within a 100 years' obscures the fact that this was just about the most disruptive 100 years of the Church's existence. We must not forget that the 'church at Antioch' was not like a building on the corner of 27th and Main, or however you folks over there give your directions ;-). It was a community of saints, often needing to go underground during times of intense persecution. Any copies of apostle's writings would be passed from hand to hand not left in the 'library' for folks to read.When folk begin thinking about a new translation, for whatever reason, the first thing is what do we translate? The earliest European vernacular translations were all linked to a publication by Erasmus; Erasmus was renaissance but never twice-born. His work however provided a powerful tool for the Reformation. He accessed just a few of the available mss, about 6 as I recall, and compared them. He only had one mss of Revelation and that had holes torn in it. He knew the Vulgate which was Jerome's translation into Latin, and some verses were in the Vulgate that weren't in his mss (the 1 John 5 verse in particular), so he calmly translated the Vulgate back into Greek and included that as part of the original Greek text. Erasmus was early 16th century.Later a few more mss were available for the Greek text editions of Stephens in 1550 and again for Elzevir which he completed in 1624. Technically it is Elzevir's Greek text which was referred to as the Received Text, so to be pedantic the KJV is not based on the Received Text but on Stephen's 1550 text, and was heavily dependent on Tyndale's translation of 1526; Tyndale had only Erasmus' Greek text based on those 6 or so documents. As more mss became available scholars were able to compare them and come to their decisions as to which was the most reliable reading. However, the text of Stephens and Elzevir are so close that no-one usually complains if both are regarded as the Received Text.It is important to understand that there is not a document somewhere called the Received Text. The phrase refers properly to Elzevir's compilation of a Greek text.The scholars who compile these Greek texts are usually called editors, and there have been many since that time. The Byzantine textform however is much more numerous than just the documents that were available to Erasmus, Stephens and Elzevir and many more mss have become available since their time. In that sense the so called Received Text is a subset of the Byzantine textform.Robinson and Pierpoint have themselves compiled a Greek text from the which is now available free online and it used in the e-sword and online bible modules. The academic justification for their strong support of the Byzantine textform is in the article a hyperlinked some time back. Again, although it may be heavy weather I would encourage you to look up that Maurice Robinson document. I don't regard myself as an expert on these things but if you come across aspects that are a bit too rarified, get in touch and I will try to talk you through them (if I can understand them!) 8-)

I do have a question on this topic but I fear I'll muddy the waters,I'm going to ask anyways but it'll be a couple of week before I'm back on since I have to travel for a 10 day meeting in Pa.---- so here goes.I've been reading alot about manuscripts that are now surfacing from the Koptic and Northern Africa region.Many say that whats being translated is more precise and accurate than what we have now, any insight?

Funny you should say that... we're actually part of the house church movement.Me too, although we outgrew our 'house' some time ago and built a meeting hall by the side of it. Our instincts and practices are still 'house church' in the main.

I've been reading alot about manuscripts that are now surfacing from the Koptic and Northern Africa region.Many say that whats being translated is more precise and accurate than what we have now, any insight?I think I'll wait until you can give us some more details.

When I get back in 2 weeks I'll do better justice to this post and give you further details as to what I've read ---heard--and the articles ,,,, I'll try to find a site where they are so you can look them up and see what you think.

I have a question to ask an dI hope someone will be able to help me out with this. What difference does it make which text I am using? I've got a good news and an NIV bible (which has lots of good commentary I think) Is there a difference in the annointing or the accuracy of the translation and if so how does that affect my life as a Crhistian.

There is a big difference between the underlying greek texts. For instance, the KJV is based on what is called the Received Text, or the "majority text". It's called that because the majority of ancient greek manuscripts are all of the same nature as what you see translated into English in the KJV. Something like 2,000 manuscripts copies make up the received text.so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?The origin of the Received Text, and the origin of these other 2 manuscripts are very different. I personally believe (after some study into this issue) that the manuscripts used to translate the modern versions are corrupt. They are very different from what was accepted as the preserved Word of God for 1800 years, the Received Text.corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?Many people claim they can read the modern versions and get the same doctrine from them. In most cases this is true, however the doctrine in many verses has been completely altered. Doctrines that have been weakened in the modern versions are: Salvation, Baptism, Jesus' Diety, the existance of Hell, Fasting, and many more. So why read a Bible that weakens godly doctrine?Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.Are these things that are written in the bible not spiritual in nature? Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant? I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down. with that being said and the authors that GOd commissioned to write the Word being instructed by the spirit should we not also seek that same spirit to minister to us concerning these spiritual things?I stop there because philologos loves to point out where he thinks I am wrong on this issue... even tho we both have come to the exact same conclusion on this issue. (and he probably is more educated on this than I am)More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.

OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.the good news bible reads as follows:there is no verse 37 but it says in the commentary that some versions have verse 37 which reads "Phillip said to him, "you may be baptised if you belive with all your heart." "I do." He answered; "I belive that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."What is the significance of that? I mean in this version that verse is omitted for whatever reason and yet it is mentioned that it is available in other texts, is that bad? or more importantly is that the whole text or is there more missing?As for the eunuch who was reading from Isiah, he confessed that he believed that Christ was God's son and if we look at Peter's experience when Christ asked him who he thought Christ was and Peter Replied that he thought He was God's Son. Jesus went on to say that the only way Peter could have know that and confessed it was if the Father had revealed it to him. So this eunuch had the same revelation which came from God and was spirit. Should we not be that much more in pursuit of this spirit from God that reveals these things to us?Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.People have always done this which is wrong but should that not cause us to seek the spirit of God even more fervently for revelation of the scriptures?Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.I will do so when I am instructed to, as for comfirmation of that being right or wrong, well that is a different matter altogether. It may go against the beliefs of some and ruffle feathers but I guess that is a mark of certain revelations from God, that not everyone will be ok with them.KrispyKrittr wrote:so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?Yes, because it is based on the preserved Word of God in Greek.corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?Thats a lengthy issue... perhaps someone can jump in and help me here cuz I dont have a lot of time today to completely address this.Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant?The Bible, at least in my opinion, is pretty straight forward. Truth is simple. Yes, we should be splitting hairs on this. Absolutely.I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down. Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?Yes... he seems to be. I think he has studied this for a long time. He's pretty sharp.I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.Your brother,Krispy

OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.This conclusion probably went too far. To be fair, the verse is noted in the margin in most modern translations. It reflects a different choice in manuscripts from these translators, but I see no deliberate attempt here to distort the scripture. Moreover, I do not find "important doctrine" being deleted. That "Jesus is the Son of God" is probably not questioned by these modern translators, as can be attested by numerous other bible verses.I admire your passion for the authority and inspiration of the Word of God. But I must say, many scholars of these modern translations probably share the same passion. To say that they're trying to cast doubt on the Word, I think, is going too far.

You dont have a problem with scripture being omitted? Yes, your footnotes mention it, but what that does is casts doubt on God's Word. Even you yourself are admitting that you have doubts to the authenticity of what your reading.I'm not saying I don't have a problem with scripture being omitted, I do have a problem with that. However the word of God is revealed to me in spirit because it is a spiritual book therefore the Holy spirit does the revelation part. So even if there are certain doctrines that are ommitted or watered down in the version fo the bible one reads, the holy spirit will reveal that. Also even if the translation is exact, without the holy spirit to reveal the significance of the text then the text is of no use. Well, it's not whether it ruffles someones feathers or goes against someones belief... it's whether or not this revelation goes against scripture. God will reveal things to us thru scripture, but He is not giving new revelation outside of scripture. Therefore, anything that God has told you will be found in scripture and line up with scripture and agree 100% with scripture. Otherwise, it's not a revelation from God.When Christ spoke to the Pharisees and the people at the temple they accused Him of blasphemy and yet what he spoke was in accordance to the scriptures. Now the pharisees and such knew the OT backwards and forwards in their heads but not in spirit so they could not recognize who was before them. Which goes back to the reasons or spirit in which some of them learned the books, to make themselves appear better than everyone else in God's eyes. Sure they followed the laws to the T but why? not to glorify God but to glorify THEMSELVES BEFORE GOD AND MAN. We should be questioning the spirit in which we do what we do be it studying the word etc. Do we study the word to make ourselves appear more knowledgable before man or do we seek to glorify God?you said God will reveal things to us through scripture which is true. However God's word is not limited to the scriptures, it also entails revelations that are made to us on an individual level concerning things that may not be mentioned explicitly in scripture. Consider this, God revealed many things to the apostles, prohpets and others (who wrote the bible as instructed by the spirit) which they did not write down because God did not instruct them to do so. Does these mean that these things are any less the word of God than scripture? Of course not, they are not part of the canon because God had already decided what the canon would be and that was that. The canon has a purpose to serve and it is perfect for that purpose as it is. Now do these things go against the bible, no they don't because it is God Himself ministering to His people according to His will. What of Moses and Abraham and others who had no texts to refer to? Are the revelations from God that they had any less the word of God?God does as He pleases and does not need our approval or that we agree with Him on everything.You also said that God is not revealing anything new to us outside of scripture. That makes the assumtion that you know how God operates in that regard as a fact.God does as He pleases, He will not however contradict Himself but I don't know how God operates nor does anyone else for that matter and in our assumtions of how God works we have become lost in a maze. God never asked that we try and figure out how He works, we're not capable of even scratching the surface. Now I'm not sure anyone like being told that they are incapable but in this case we all are. I mean in the world systerm, after a certain amount of time one would expect that yu have learned something, but as far as God's workings are concerned that is an exception.All He asks is that we be obedient, that we we like children that ask no questions and just do as they are told. Life would be SOOOOO much easier if we did this. God told me that in order to serve Him properly I needed to become as a child and not ask Him hows of whys but just what do you want me to do and then after getting the intruction to do it. In this experience He has shown me that I don't know how He works and that it is not necessary that I know, what is crucial is actually doing what He wants me to do. Just curious here... exactly how do you know when God instructs you speak? Do you base that on a feeling, or does He audibly speak to you? I'm not trying to discourage you... I'm honeslty interested in knowing how you would know.You know I told my mom the same thing and she asked the same question. I was concerned for her because I felt that given all she has been through that she should know the voice of God by now. Maybe she does and God speaks to her in a different way than he would with me. I didn't explain it to her though. Anyway God speaks to me in various ways depending on the situation and what is required of me. Sometimes I hear His voice audibly saying "do this" Sometimes He just makes a way for something to happen which confirms a course of action which He had previously revealed to me. Sometimes the voice is not audible but in my mind. And yet other times He ministers to my spirit and things are handled on a spiritual level without my necessarily knowing about it in the physical.That He communicated to me audibly, that I would not always know in a way I would like to know that I'm making progress in my relationship with Him or about what I should be doing. that is part of the faith that God has it all in hand already. He follows no pattern that I can descern so I've stopped trying, I just let Him do as He pleases and allow the spirit to work as it needs to. I'm learning that I know less and less about God than I thought and leaning more and more that the way He works is more complex than I could ever imagine. The good thing is, I need not know these things but the hard part is actually being obedient.

I dont think it is. How many deletions do you need before the Word is compromised. Thousands of verses are altered using those 2 greek texts, instead of the over 2,000 greek texts that comprise the Received Text. Thats akin to the question "How much heresy does someone need before their a heretic?"You are entitled to accept the Received Text as the only inspired word of God, but I respectfully disagree. I personally think the reality is not as clear-cut as you had hoped to be. I am strongly against calling all textual variants as "deletions" and the result "heresies", as though all other devoted and hardworking scholars working on the modern translations are "heretics" who are deliberately distorting the scriptures.

I agree with you... however, let me ask you this. Are you comfortable using a Bible that is the end result of 2,000 years of attacks and mutilations of God's Word? History shows that this is the case. What say you?The two bibles I have are the only ones I have ever used, the KJV throws me off with the old English (I kinda have to read it and then translate it to modern English) Now if you have a recommendation I'd be happy to look into it.What bible version has not been contaminated in your view?My comfort is this, even if in the translation someone dropped the ball, God will minister to me and you in accordance to His will and we are to seek that will because that is what will guide us on a true path. The ministering may come through the bible or maybe the testimony of other believers or signs and wonders etc. Think about this, if the versions of the bible we have are suspect what should we do? What are we compelled to do? Go back to the source, God Himself will minister to us in HIS ways which are infallible.As for the rest of your post... fair enough. We agree. All I was saying is that God will not reveal ANYTHING to you that does not agree with what is written down. For instance... someone says "God told me to sleep with that woman, and then witness to her afterwards." I can say "Uh, no He did not." Thats an extreme example, but you get my point.And you are right we do agree on that. although I must ask, what is the woman in question is the guy's wife? :-) and I do get your point.The bible is a spiritual book inspired by God and His holiness and as such it requires that it be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written, God's holiness. We have no holiness of our own so when we try to interpret it outside of God's holiness (without his assistance) we are doomed to mess it all up. That is why we should emplore the Holy Spirit to minister to us because He can't screw up.this may be forward of me but um, where did you get the name Krispy Krittr?

By the way... I'm an avid hunter, and I like my critters crispy! Thus... Krispy Kritter.Was wondering what that was. Didn't want to ask. ;-)

Thats funny... tho I have to wonder, why did he marry an unbeliever in the first place?not sure why...Ok I see, well there are certainly some things which are subtly misleading that come from reading the wrong version. The Holy Spirit will make these things apparent and keep us from going astray as some have, assuming that we are in the spirit when we go into the word. In truth I can read and understand old English and I shall get hold of a KJV.Krispy is good, I'm not sure I'm a good hunter, never tried it but I am good at eating though.

With apologies to our readers in the Emerald Isle but there is a story about a stranger who asked an Irishman the way to Dublin. "If I were you," said the local, "I wouldn't start from here." It's the way I feel about this topic.Let me ask a question; is the KJV Bible perfect? For anyone who answers 'yes' to this question this is going to be a very short conversation. ;-) For the rest we have to ask 'in what ways is it imperfect and can we compensate for those imperfections? I am usually known as a KJV man. I meditate in it, I study from it, I preach from it. I have conducted fairly regular flirtations with other versions over many years. I did a three year course of study in which my study text was the RSV, then I returned the KJV. I had a period of time when I used an interlinear KJV/RV, and then returned the KJV. I used the NASV for a while and then returned to the KJV. I used the NKJV for a couple of years and then returned to the KJV. I used the ESV briefly, and quickly returned to the KJV. I hope these credentials will give me a hearing among those who, like myself, have a heart commitment to the KJV.But I am not blind to some of the weaknesses of the KJV. I can't be, I know the history of its creation. It was a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision, and if you think I'm exagerating please read on. The first vernacular New Testament translated direct from the Greek was that of Tyndale in 1526. Here is my favourite Tyndale quotation. It comes from his preface to the reader in his New Testament; If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended. This was a commitment, by Tyndale, to a policy of continual improvement. He did not believe that he had produced a perfect translation; but it was the best he could do.In fact, it was wonderful. A bible scholar of the early 20th century wrote. In reference to the KJV Thomas Newberry wrote; the peculiar genius which breathes through the English bible, the mingled tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the grandeur, unequalled, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man - William Tyndale For any who are unfamiliar with the KJV's history let me point out that 83% of the KJV New Testament is Tyndale, exactly.So why did the translation committee for the version we call the KJV change 17% of Tyndale’s translation? To understand the answer to this you have to dig a little into English history. Tyndale’s version was banned and burned and hunted throughout the reign of Henry VIII. Reformation Church history as applied to England is very complicated. It was a political movement, a church reformation and a spiritual revival all mixed up together. It is impossible to separate out these strands of events; they constantly impacted upon each other. Henry VIII did not want a reformed church; he wanted a Catholic church with himself at the head. He used protestants to further his own political ends in the procuring of a male heir, but had no sympathy with their spirituality.One of his queens owned a copy of Tyndale’s New Testament. It is on public display in the British Library and I have seen it often, and thanked God for the man who made it possible. The opening pages have the words "The Newe Testament, dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyan Tindale. Antwerp, 1534.” It features the personal coat of arms of Henry’s second wife; it was Anne Boleyn's personal copy of the English New Testament.Tyndale died, strangled and burned at the stake in Belgium. His dying words were, "Lord, open the eyes of the King of England". You can read about the greatest Englishman of all time here. Erasmus, a renaissance scholar but not a twice born man, had ‘created’ a Greek text. He had compared 6 ancient manuscripts, all of the Byzantine textform, and compiled a Greek text which, to him, was a best fit to all the manuscripts available to him. He had only one manuscript of the Revelation and this had holes in it. But Erasmus’ Greek New Testament of 1516 was probably the most important tool in the hands of the Reformers. It was the text underlying Tyndale’s translation. Luther translated the Bible into German from it in 1522 and four years in 1526 later Tyndale produced his first English New Testament. These English New Testaments were smuggled in from the continent of Europe. When found they were confiscated and burned. Ultimately it would become a capital offence to be found in possession of a copy. During the last six years of his life Tyndale was assisted by Myles Coverdale and John Rogers and they carried the project forward. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. Thus, the first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible. John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, whose writings had been condemned by the English authorities. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and a small amount of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew's Bible. Effectiviely the Coverdale Bible and the Matthew’s Bible were reprints of Tyndale’s work with minor revisions.In 1539 Archbishop Cranmer, commissioned Miles Coverdale to publish the ‘Great Bible’, a copy of which was chained to the pulpit of every church building in England, It seemed that God had answered Tyndale’s martyr prayer. However Henry VIII died and was succeeded by his daughter Mary (Bloody Mary) who launched a withering persecution against the Protestants; Cranmer and Rogers were both burned at the stake with hundreds of others. If you want more information read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Many Protestants went into exile, many to Geneva. Miles Coverdale escaped to Geneva and together with others. He and others determined to produce another revision of the Bible, this time with marginal notes. It was known as the Geneva Bible (and in England sometimes as the Britches Bible)The Geneva Bible added verse numberings to the chapters, so that referencing specific passages would be easier. Every chapter was also accompanied by extensive marginal notes and references so thorough and complete that the Geneva Bible is also considered the first English "Study Bible". The works of Shakespeare contain many quotes from the Geneva translation. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published. The Geneva Bible retains approximately 90% of William Tyndale's translation. For many decades, the Geneva Bible remained more popular than that authorized by King James. This, incidentally, was the Bible that the Pilgrims took to the New World. There is a group of folk dedicated to the propagation of the Geneva Bible and e-sword has a free module.The Anglican Church, under Queen Elizabeth I, reluctantly tolerated the printing and distribution of the Geneva Bible in England, but those marginal notes were dangerously subversive, positively republican at times! It was decided to produce another version that was regarded as less anti-authoritarian. It was prepared under the auspices of the Bishops and in 1568, the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 printing between 1568 and 1606, the version never gained popularity among the people. The Geneva version was simply too trusted to compete with.Bloody Mary was followed by Edward and Elisabeth and finally by King James. King James hated the Geneva Bible; he referred to it as ‘the worst of all’. James gave directions that a new translation should be commissioned with ‘no marginal notes’ having found “in them which are annexed to the Geneva translation… some notes very partial (ie of party spirit), untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.” James was king of Scotland and when he also became king of England he tried to unite the countries and its peoples. His peoples were divided particularly between pro-Catholic tendencies and a rule of bishops and pro-reformation tendencies with presbyters. James knew from his Scottish experience that it is very difficult to control presbyters and was strongly in support of the bishops system; episcopacy. And with this I will pause… his main reason for commissioning the Bible we know as the King James Version was to moderate the extremes of Protestantism and Anglo-Catholic tendencies. If the KJV is 10% different to the Geneva Bible a good portion of that percentage will be to favour authoritarian options against the independents. It is vital to understand that when it comes to studying patterns of church government the KJV is a hostile witness. So starting with Tyndale’s version, the KJV is a revision of a revision (Bishops Bible) of a revision (Geneva Bible) of a revision (Great Bible) of a revision (Matthew’s Bible) of a revision (Coverdale’s Bible) of the earliest English translation from an eclectic text prepared by a secular humanist scholar. It is still my preferred choice, but I am under no illusions as to where it came from.

It is still my preferred choice, but I am under no illusions as to where it came from.Great review Bro. Ron,I was reading through and my mind was going on all sorts of rabbit trails. The opening pages have the words "The Newe Testament, dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke by Willyan Tindale. Antwerp, 1534.” It features the personal coat of arms of Henry’s second wife; it was Anne Boleyn's personal copy of the English New Testament.I was most reminded of a statement I once heard said that Henry wanted her so bad that, " A thousand Wolsey's was not worth one Anne Boleyn." My how the fancies of men change. I understand that he went hunting and a Frenchman was brought in to sever her head with one blow of the ax. Henry VIII was informed of her death when a cannon shot was fired. Things really started to get bad after this. Bloody Mary would come to the throne. Every English language speaking Christian should do a study of how much suffering came to pass to get us a Bible. I have heard it said that the KJV is the Bible of all modern revivals. I to know it is not perfect, but I know God's hand was there all the time. Tyndale! Was he not a man that could speak several languages to which you could not tell which one was his native tongue? God raised these men. Praise the Lord forever!God Bless,-Robert

Tyndale! Was he not a man that could speak several languages to which you could not tell which one was his native tongue? God raised these men. Praise the Lord forever!Eight, I think was the number, and no-one really knows how he learned Hebrew; they didn't teach it in English Universities. But Tyndale was not just a brilliant mind; he had a burning heart. To my mind is the most attractive of all the best known reformers; Luther, Calvin, Zwingli...

... even if you are a Brit! (and most of my anscetors came from Ireland and Scotland. (Go William Wallace!)I am tempted to say 'why doesn't that surprise me?' but I won't! :-D My wife is of Scots-Irish descent too, so I had better be cautious!

My wife is of Scots-Irish descent too, so I had better be cautious!Yep! You don't want to get another message from (HQ) as I think you called it. My wife laughes everytime I play that sermon. God Bless,-Robert

But I am not blind to some of the weaknesses of the KJV. I can't be, I know the history of its creation. It was a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision, and if you think I'm exagerating please read on. The first vernacular New Testament translated direct from the Greek was that of Tyndale in 1526. Here is my favourite Tyndale quotation. It comes from his preface to the reader in his New Testament; If I shall perceive either by myself or by the information of another, that ought be escaped me, or might be more plainly translated, I will shortly after, cause it to be mended. This was a commitment, by Tyndale, to a policy of continual improvement. He did not believe that he had produced a perfect translation; but it was the best he could do.If even the venerable KJV and other famous versions of the bible have weaknesses how did they come to be and what should we do in order not to fall victim to them? I think this is where the ministry of the Holy spirit is crucial. With the Holy spirit to interpret and teach us the Word (not interpreting it in or with our heads) then such weaknesses will not matter because the Holy Spirit in it's perfection will minister to us in that same perfection. The bible itself is a spiritual book and requires spirit to interpret it lest it vexes our minds. We should allow the Holy spirit to minister to us according to God's will, nothing more, nothing less because then we are asking for trouble.

KrispyI'd observed that Philologos was pretty sharp. I see his posts everywhere...

I see his posts everywhere...sounds like some kind of infestation! :-x

I see his posts everywhereyes it would appear so...some sort of fast-spreading infestation :-D

I don't believe the KJV is perfect, but I do believe it is accurate... and absolutely the best English Bible. Some believe it was inspired... I believe it was guided. There is a difference. But the weaknesses are NOT in the doctrine. In the modern versions the weakening is in the doctrine. Any weaknesses in the KJV are rather insignifigant.oh ok I see. glad we cleared that up

By weaknesses... my personal position is that there are words in the greek and hebrew that are hard to translate into English. Some of Tyndale's translation (which 80% of the KJV New Testament is basically copied from) contains words that make a stronger impact than in the KJV, and I think are really closer to the meaning of the original greek word.Krispy, I have asked this question before. How much Greek do you know?There are special strengths in the Tyndale version, but there are weaknesses there too. Tyndale is slightly less of a 'literal translation' than is the KJV. I don't believe the KJV is perfect, but I do believe it is accurate... and absolutely the best English Bible. Some believe it was inspired... I believe it was guided. There is a difference. But the weaknesses are NOT in the doctrine. In the modern versions the weakening is in the doctrine. Any weaknesses in the KJV are rather insignifigant.The weaknesses in the KJV are by no means 'insignificant'.The King James translation committee were commissioned to restore 'ecclesiastical words' which Tyndale had specifically altered. I will give you some examples.1. In 1 Cor 13 Tyndale used the word 'love'. He consciously changed from Wycliffe's word 'charity'.If Y speke with tungis of men and of aungels, and Y haue not charite, Y am maad as bras sownynge, or a cymbal tynkynge. (1Co 13:1 WycliffeNT)Though I spake with the tonges of me and angels and yet had no love I were eve as soundinge brasse: or as a tynklynge Cymball. (1Co 13:1 Tyndale)He did this because he knew that 'charity' meant giving gifts to acquire merit, as in the Roman system. King James' translation committee changed it back again; Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV) There is a significant 'doctrinal' difference between these two words.2. in 1 John 1:9 Tyndale translated Yf we knowledge oure synnes he is faythfull and iust to forgeve vs oure synnes and to clense vs from all vnrightewesnes. (1Jo 1:9 Tyndale) The word 'knowledge' here is used in the sense of 'acknowledge' or 'recognise'. Tyndale did not use 'confess' because he knew that 'confession' would bring to mind priests and absolution. His translation is good. The Greek word 'homologeO' means to 'to say the same word', in other words to 'agree' or 'acknowledge' our sins.King James' Translation committee wanted to uphold the role of priest in the Anglical church and changed it; If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1Jo 1:9 KJV) This is a significant 'doctrinal' difference.3. The King James' translation committee were obsessed with 'order'. They were desperate to maintain the 'status quo' of the monarchy and the bishops. This attitude leaks through much of the KJV. Take ye tente to you, and to al the flocke, in which the Hooli Goost hath set you bischops, to reule the chirche of God, which he purchaside with his blood. (Act 20:28 WycliffeNT) Notice Wycliffe sets the 'bishops' 'within' the church of God.Take hede therfore vnto youre selves and to all the flocke wherof the holy goost hath made you oversears to rule the congregacion of God which he hath purchased with his bloud. (Act 20:28 Tyndale) Notice Tyndale makes the 'overseers' 'part' of the church of God.Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28 KJV) the KJV has separated the overseers from the church and set them 'over' it.This is a significant 'doctrinal' difference. Wycliffe used the word 'church' 83 times in his New Testament. Tyndale used the word 'church' only twice; in each case of a heathen temple. Throughout the OT and NT he used the word 'congregation'; the Greek word ekklesia means a group of people gathered out for a specific purpose. The KJV uses the word 'church' 117 times, at the direction of the translation committee who were determined to fix the idea of a church building in the minds of their readers.I could go on, but these will illustrate the point. It is just not true to say 'any weaknesses in the KJV are rather insignificant'.I don't want to offend you Krispy but each of your posts shows that you do not appreciate the significance of these translations or their history. I begin to doubt that you are able to use Greek to support your views but are really just repeating what you have read or heard elsewhere. You say that you believe the KJV is accurate; I think that really sums up your position. It is a statement of faith rather than conclusions reached through research.

I have personally owned most of the important English versions of the Bible from Tynsdale to... You actually had a Tyndale Bible, now I am envious. But to study the Bible....use James 1 and ask God for Wisdom and he will grant it to you. Then pray and study....pull up several translations and read them.....what do you get out of it? Compare it to other scriptures....what is God trying to teach you?This simple but wise council has been my motivation in getting into this thread!

Krispy writes: Are you saying that someone needs to speak greek fluently before they can discuss this issue?Not at all, but I do thing you have to have some knowledge of it before you make the absolute statements that you have made here. I don't regards myself as a Greek scholar, but I know enough to know how little I know and so to proceed with caution.I know nothing about weapons so if this illustration doesn't make sense please forgive me. The KJV is my version of preference. It is an old and faithful companion of many years. It has a tendence to throw the shot to the left in certain conditions, but then I know that so I can compensate as I read. There are some new guns on the block which have some really cool features but they can be unpredictable, and I find myself carrying two weapons in case the new model lets me down. In some circumtances and when I am going for particular targets some of those new models are just in a league of their own, but for general purpose reliability I shall stick to my old companion until I find something which is consistently better. I don't rubbish the new models because they can sometimes do a job better than 'old faithful', but when I can only carry one, there's no question which one I choose.I would re-echo the advise of prayer4am, don't be afraid to 'pull down some other versions' from time to time and see how they behave.Unfortunately with 4 small kids, I dont have time to do the research I would like to do on my own. Been there done that! Enjoy! The time is all too short!

Actually yes, I do. Not an original... I believe there are only 2 in existence. Correct me if I am wrong. I have a copy where the editor changed the spelling to modern spelling so you can actually read it. I love it. I bought it at the campus bookstore at Bob Jones Univeristy last spring when my kids were there for a science fair.Yes, I have that one. It was produced by David Daniell. He also wrote a wonderful biography of William Tyndale, which I would heartily recommned although the Sermonindex Bookstore seems to have a crippling price. Amazon.com has it at less than a third of the price.

He also wrote a wonderful biography of William Tyndale, which I would heartily recommned although the Sermonindex Bookstore seems to have a crippling price. Amazon.com has it at less than a third of the price.The amazon one is paperback, the SermonIndex one is hardback.The hardcover version from amazon is more expensive than the SermonIndex one!:-o http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300061323/qid=1108106373/sr=12-2/002-4453365-9591237?v=glance&s=booksPerhaps it would be good if SermonIndex stocked the paperback as well.

Thanks NasherI suspected it might be.

As for the RT being the only inspired Word of God... reason this thru. The RT and the Alexandrian Text are so different from each other, we must come to 1 of 2 conclusions:1) Only one of them is the inspired Word of God.2) Neither of them are the inspired Word of God.They cant both be the inspired Word of God.I think it is too simplistic to apply either-or logic in this case.Again, your original claim that the translators of the modern translations of the Bible somehow deliberately distorts the Scriptures is one that cannot be substantiated. Many of these scholars are just as devoted to the authority of the Word of God as you are (if not more!). [One of which I have talked to personally is Gordon Fee].You can argue for this or that methodology or manuscript as superior over another, but to (a) state that only the Received Text is inspired of God; and, (b) question the faith of all others who based their works on other texts; Well, that, I think, is going too far.No offense taken at all. I am not even disagreeing with you on the validity of the Received Text (it's something that I don't feel qualified to comment on yet, and will study further, given the opportunity). However, I will vehemently disagree with any stance that totally dismiss other translations as deliberate distortions.

Hi everyone! I have read each posting by all of you and see so so much MORE than simple debate on translation issues...)hint: Let's be polite :) )the following is something i have had for a while...not written by me however, but facts are presented concisely:Why We Use the King James VersionAs a pastor, I write this for the people in our church. On occasion, I have been asked why we, in our church, use the outdated King James Version. To answer that, we must touch on some complex and technical subjects. I, accordingly, have attempted to simplify the manner to a degree that most can understand. In Proverbs 22:28 the Bible says to "Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." A landmark is a surveyor's term and refers to a benchmark or property marker. Today, in most jurisdictions, it is against the law to move or alter a survey landmark. Christianity has its foundations in an authorizing and governing document. That document is the Bible. Any attorney will understand the critical nature of altering an authorizing and governing document. Because the Bible is in every sense the final and absolute foundation of what we as Christians believe and practice, it only is prudent that we be concerned that the foundation is sure and the benchmark has not been altered. For almost two millennia the church of Jesus Christ accepted a set of Greek and Hebrew texts that were received by virtually all gospel preaching, Bible believing churches of whatever group. This text was called the Received Text (or Textus Receptus in Latin). Down through the centuries biblical scholars and church leaders had assembled the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. From that compilation, the vast majority were in virtual agreement. These formed the basis of the Received Text. In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world. Enter Textual Criticism Textual criticism is an academic discipline in which scholars study existing Greek and Hebrew biblical manuscripts. Prior to the advent of the moveable type printing press in 1455 by Gutenberg, all copies of the Bible were hand copied by scribes and were called manuscripts. Because they were individually produced by human hands, they were prone to mistakes in manual copying. Textual critics study the various extant (existing) manuscripts and note any discrepancies that may have occurred between different copies. Then, by comparing them, a majority consensus is established. Should a misspelled word be found, or should a word have been accidentally added or omitted from a given manuscript, the textual critic endeavors to by consensus establish the correct reading. A major theory of textual criticism is that some later manuscripts were copied from earlier ones, therefore, the earlier manuscripts are presumed to be a more accurate source of the Scriptures. (The presumption is that scribal errors would accumulate in later copies). Hence, textual critics give much more credence to early manuscripts than to later copies even if the later be greater in number. The problem with this theory is that the early church had great reverence and respect for their "accepted" or "received" manuscripts of the Scriptures. Accordingly, when a given copy of the Scriptures became tattered and worn, it was carefully copied and then burned Hence, there are virtually no copies of me earliest manuscripts used by the churches. However, there is evidence that certain cults and sects within early Christians followed the opposite practice. They preserved their manuscripts regardless of condition. Therefore, the crucial premise of textual criticism - that the oldest manuscripts are always to be preferred to more recent copies is critically flawed. Manuscripts Aleph and B ln the latter half of the 19th century when textual criticism perhaps was at its zenith, two ancient manuscripts were found in the Mediterranean world that would come to revolutionize the work of the textual critics. A manuscript was "found" in a Roman Catholic monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert. It came to be known as Manuscript Aleph and it also was known as Codex Sinaticus ("codex" being a Latin word for a bound volume). About the same time another ancient manuscript was "found" in the library of the Vatican. It became known as Manuscript B or Codex Vaticanus. Both of these manuscripts were determined to have come from the 4th century A.D. and are considered the oldest basically complete copies of the New Testament to exist. Hence, they were considered by the textual critics to be the mother lode of ancient Bible manuscripts. It is noteworthy that both of these manuscripts were "found" in Roman Catholic libraries. (The Roman Catholic Church historically has never given great credence to the Scripture or its teachings). Moreover, the Codex Sinaticus had been produced by scribes of the Alexandrian sect in early church history. The Alexandrians were a heretical cult similar to the modern Jehovah Witnesses. They held major doctrinal deviations pertaining to the person of Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding the questionable source of Codex Sinaticus, it became the premiere source for future textual criticism. Drs. Westcott and Hort Two British textual critics championed these newly found manuscripts. Their names were Dr. B. F. Westcott and Dr. F. J. A. Hort. They represented a branch of the Church of England which was enamored with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort in their writings showed a keen friendliness to Roman Catholic theology, occult spiritism and German Rationalism otherwise known as modernism. They, by no stretch of the imagination, could he considered fundamentalists s the term was later coined and used. Rather, if they lived today, their theology and philosophy (as evidenced by their writings) would be called liberal, humanistic, sacramental and even have occult overtones. Drs. Hort and Westcott together collated and Text o f the New Testament. The "new" Greek text was in contrast with and in distinction to the text mat had been received by virtually all Bible believing . churches for the preceding 19 centuries. In the last 100 years it has been re-edited by Nestle, Aland and others, and today is generally referred in as the critical text. 11 represents less than 1% of existing manuscripts. From this critical text and its direct predecessor, the Westcott and Hort Text, virtually all modern translations and versions of the Bible have been translated into English. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRITICAL TEXT IS CORRUPT! Not only are its origins and associations suspect, the actual text itself is full of deletions and dilutions of the time honored Scripture received by translations based upon the critical text have diluted reference to the blood of Jesus Christ (e.g. Romans 3:25, Colossians 1:14, Revelation 1:11, Luke 22:20 et al), the Deity of Christ (e g Jude 4, Revelation 1:11). the inspiration of the Scriptures (e.g. 11 Timothy 3:16), and salvation by faith (e.g. John 3:36) to mention a few. Space does not allow us to list the numerous instances of serious dilution or deletions of major doctrinal truth in modern versions, but it is lengthy. There are thousands of textual changes If a survey benchmark has been moved or altered, all surveying after that point will be distorted. And because the critical text is in our view corrupt. any version of the Bible translated from it is suspect. Modern Versions The venerable King James Version of the Bible is not copyrighted. It is considered a public domain publication of the Word of God. However, virtually all modern versions are copyrighted. As any author or publisher knows, a copyright is for protection of commercial rights. It means that no one else may market their Bible without paying the publisher or at the least receiving written permission to do so. Does not the Apostle Peter refer to some in the last days "making merchandise of you" regarding the things of God (II Peter 2:3)? Moreover, a number of the modem versions (based upon the critical text) have used less than precise methods for translation. Some have used a literary device known as "dynamic equivalence". This is a fancy term that essentially means some translators have taken the liberty to come up with what they think are modern equivalents for specific words in the manuscript text rather than precisely translating the specific words of the text. In effect, this is a running commentary on the part of the translators, injecting into the translation what they think a given passage means, rather than rendering a precise translation of what the scriptural writers actually wrote. There is nothing wrong with Bible commentaries. However, to insert personal bias under the guise of translation is not only Iess than a faithful rendering of the text, it is deceptive. In at least one case, a popular version bas bad the honesty to indicate m its subtitle mat it is a paraphrase. Unfortunately, unwary minds often look at such a Bible paraphrase as the Bible nevertheless. Some versions have used vulgar and crude terms m their translations They have seemed oblivious to the unique purity of purpose of the Scripture. As mentioned above, cardinal New Testament doctrine such as the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture is routinely diluted m recent translations based upon -me critical text. That should give pause for concern! The Godly Heritage of the KJV In viewing the distortions, deletions, corruptions, dilutions, changes and questionable associations of the critical text and its resultant modernist translations, we will stick to the venerable King lames Version of the Bible that our forebearers so faithfully used. It is an ancient landmark Down through the centuries, it has been the Bible used for every major revival to sweep across portions of the English speaking world. It was the Bible of tbe Pilgrim forefathers of this nation. And. it has been God blessed wherever it bas been used. It is based upon the ancient text which bas been, until just recently, the universally accepted text of the Scriptures from the time of the apostles. Modern versions bave been marketed extensively as being easier to read than the archaic, old fashioned KJV Bible. However, recent computerized document analysis programs have objectively revealed that the King James Version of the Bible is in far easier to read than the NIV or the NASB. The Fleisch-Kincaid research firm has, through computerized analysis, sbown that the KJV vocabulary has fewer syllables per word than the NIV or the NASB. Furthertmore, the KJV has less complex sentences than the NIV or NASB. In reality, the KJV is easier to read than its modern counterparts in the manner of vocabulary and syntax. There is undisputed eloquence and beauty in the King James Version. Moreover, the English language was at its zenith in the early 17th century for poetic beauty and eloquence. Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the King James Version is actually a strength. People unacquainted with proper English complain about the use of "thee" and "thou" etc. in the King James text. However, as anyone who knows linguistics will attest, many languages have at one time had a common level which was spoken on the street and a higher or formal level that was used in reference to royalty and God. The usage of "thee" and "thou" etc. in old English is a form of higher English that no longer is commonly used. It originally was used in formal situations where deference and respect to nobility, royalty and Deity were appropriate. Unfortunately, our contemporary American English usage of "you" and "yours" etc. makes no allowance for such deference and brings all of our Ianguage back to the lower level. The King James Version respectfully and appropriately refers to God and other notables as "tbee" or "thou" in accordance with their due respect. Most modern language translations have diluted that deference. Dr.Frank Logsdon Dr. Frank Logsdon was the Co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He since has renounced any connection to it. "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong . . . The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, (editor's note: Mr. Lockman was the benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (editor's note: this is the same as the NASB). You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct . . ." Dr. Frank Logsdon We have determined not to remove the ancient landmark in a matter so crucial as the foundation of our faith . . . the Word of God. And what withal the deletions, dilutions, and questionable origins of the modern versions, we will stick to the King James Version!

In the year 1611 A.D., King James I of England was influenced to provide a common Bible for the English speaking world. Hence, he authorized a translation of the Bible into English that came to be known as the Authorized Version or as it is more commonly known, the King James Version. King James selected a committee of Greek and Hebrew scholars from the Church of England. These men were "low church" individuals with ties to the Puritans and later the Pilgrims who emigrated to America. They worked from the text of the Greek and Hebrew testaments that had been received" or accepted by virtually all branches of gospel preaching, Bible believing Christians from the apostolic era to that time. Their product, the King James Version of the Bible, has been, until just recently, the universal standard for Bible believing Christians of the English speaking world.Hi No-More-SinI will work through your post slowly. This paragraph, historically, is completely inaccurate. I know that this will be hard to take for some who have been constantly taught the opposite but it just is not true.King James specifically excluded the most puritan scholars from his translation committee. The remaining minority of puritans were 'tamed' men and their association in committees which were predominantly anti-puritan further diluted their contributions.They had NO TIES to the pilgrims who later left for 'the colonies'. In fact the pilgrims left England as a result of the persecution instigated by some of the members of James' translation committee. The KJV had not been published when they left and the Bible of the Pilgrim Fathers was not the KJV but the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible had been translated by puritans and it was partly because of its popularity that James opted for a new translation. He hated the Geneva Bible and was fixed in his opposition to the presbyterianism of the puritans and separatists.In case you have not read all the other posts on this thread, I use the KJV constantly. I will be preaching from it later on this morning and again this evening. I meditate from it, I study it, I love it, but the claims that are made for it in the kind of language you have quoted are inappropriate and these claims just cannot be substantiated.The KJV version was translated as a means of uniting a fractious nation. It moved away from the puritanism and to some degree from the protestantism of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews and the Geneva Bible. Its translators were a motley crew, a mixture of godly men, time-servers, royal sycophants and anti-puritans. It employs the language of the Jacobean royal court rather than the Anglo-Saxen of Tyndale. Itis beautiful and grand but those are not necessarily the most important criteria for a dependable translation.I shall continue to use the KJV 'until I find something better' but I am not deceived into thinking it even approaches 100% perfect.

Grace to you, Phil! Thank you for taking the time needed in going through my post and the information contained...Let me state once again that the info I gave was not mine, but another's....and I don't claim that information to be 100% correct, as we know that history was written by fallible man; thus, ALL historical evidence to one point or another is tainted by man's own fallibility, save the Word of God alone.Most of us know William Gurnall (The Christian In Complete Armour)..I hold the volumes in my library, and this man's work is absolutely amazing!William Gurnall was a Puritan, yet did not break ties with the Church of his day, but chose to remain "on the inside", so to speak, while his Puritan Brethren cut ties with the Church....this can be found in the forward of Gurnall's Book.What does this show?Simply stated, not all Puritans were "on the outside", Beloved, as Gurnall, who was by FAR a price of the princes, remained "on the inside".Now, dear friend, you state that the historical value in my post isn't accurate, yet authoratative sources have shown differently than your's....yet, at the same time, you also have sources which contradict mine.We thus come into a "he said, she said" problem....one hitorical account seeks to show more weight than the other, and the circle is never ending.We must part ways on THIS particular point in the discussion,as sooner or later it may be a "my history shows more than your history" debate..which I'm seeking to refrain from, as this would not bring us closer to the facts of the case at hand. I agree with much of what the ANTI KJO proponent state, yet not with all, as my posting shows....To me, the Bible is just that, the Bible.Many would claim that the pure Word of God was "lost" "centuries" ago...yet I ask: Where was God when this happened? If God can keep a wretched sinner as myself safe in the arms of Jesus Christ, I am persuaded that HIs Word, which He has exulted above His Name, can be kept at a much higher inspirational authority than even the PUREST of the saints.As for historical argument, would you state, point for point, against my posting? This will serve to justify your statement that the information presented by me is not accurate, and from THERE we will move on further, leaving the historical points to be read and thought out as they are.In Christ, No_More_Sin

Now, dear friend, you state that the historical value in my post isn't accurate, yet authoratative sources have shown differently than your's....yet, at the same time, you also have sources which contradict mine.Please question/challenge any of my statements and I will provide you with historical evidence. Some of the 'evidence' in your posting could not possibly be true. The Pilgrim Fathers were all in Amsterdam by August 1608. As the KJV was not published until 1611 it will clear to anyone that they did not take the KJV with them.If you would like to read a history of the KJV I would recommend God's Secretaries (it was also published under the title of 'the power and the glory')

You're a Brit trying to speak about our American heritage. Sheesh!!You have no idea how disciplined I am being in NOT telling any of my American jokes! The last time I told one to an American it took three weeks of apologies!Some years ago I worked for an international bank which had employed an American computer whiz. On the 4th July we took him out to a famous London eating place called Simpsons where they specialise in meat pies. Half way through the meal he looked up and said "I know what you are doing. You have taken me to lunch in a pub which is older than my country". Heritage, what heritage? Johnnie come latelys! JUST JOKING!!!! HONEST!!! JUST JOKING!!!

Are you referring to the time that English colonists beat off an army commissioned by a German king?

Brother Phil, here is some historical reading that you had asked for :)If this doesn't help I'll try to be more specific in next post:Also, take CAREFUL note of the ENDING of this brief article, as I will post one BELOW it, giving geneological evidence that there WERE Pilgrims (Puritans) in England at the time you claim they were in Amsterdam...you're right, but also incorrect, as NOT every Puritan went to Holland...as I will show in my concluding argument after this short article....The following is from Sam Gipp's The Answer Book.QUESTION: The Textus Receptus didn't appear until 1633 so how can the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611, be translated from it? ANSWER: Wrong. EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these were Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure. Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth-shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus ' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries to come. Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551. Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565,1567,1580,1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes. It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus's edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators. Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years. They stated in Latin "textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." i.e. "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born. So we see that, even though the name "Textus Receptus was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the true Greek Text originating in Antioch. __________EVIDENCE to show that your (phil's) statement was incomplete:ANCESTRAL SUMMARY: The ancestry of Francis Cooke is not known. Several ficticious ancestries have been presented, some clearly hoaxes (one can be found in "New Light on the Pilgrim Story", chapter 6. For a discussion of why this is a hoax, see English Ancestry and Homes of the Pilgrim Fathers, by Charles Banks. There is conflicting evidence about the birth of Francis Cooke. A note scribbled in Bradford's Journal says Francis Cooke died above the age of 80, meaning he was born before 1583. However, in August 1643, he was in a list of men of Plymouth between the age of 16 and 60 allowed to bear arms. This means he was born after 1583. Also, he was married in Leyden in 1603, so he probably would have been at least 21 at the time. This means a birth before 1583. The fact that all these records seem to conflict suggests that Francis Cook was probably born in 1583. Charles Banks mentions a Francis Cooke baptized on 6 April 1572, in Biddenden, Kent, England, son of Thomas. However, this person is about ten years too old for the Francis of the Mayflower. Cooke had been living in Holland about eight years before the arrival of John Robinson and the rest of the Pilgrims. His wife Hester was from Canterbury, England, so perhaps that is where he is from as well. Francis is described as a "Woolcomber from England" in Dutch records dating back as early as 25 April 1603. Francis' wife Hester Mahieu was the daughter of Jaques and Jenne Mahieu, French Waloon refuges that had fled to Canterbury, England where Hester was born about 1584. When in Leyden, Holland, from 1603 until the arrival of the Pilgrims, Francis and Hester were members of the French Waloon church. However, in 1606 Francis and his wife left for a trip to Norwich, and they returned in 1607 to have their son baptized in the Church, and in 1608 they rejoined communion with the Walloon Church in Leyden. Sometime between 1611 and 1618, the Cookes switched and began communion with the Pilgrims' Separatist church in Leyden. In 1620, Francis and son John embarked on the Mayflower, leaving behind his wife and younger children (who would come later when the Colony was more settled).

In 1620, Francis and son John embarked on the Mayflower, leaving behind his wife and younger children (who would come later when the Colony was more settled).Yes, the KJV did not become popular in England until almost 50 years after its first publishing. It might never have become popular if James had not banned the publishing of the Geneva Bible.QUESTION: The Textus Receptus didn't appear until 1633 so how can the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611, be translated from it?ANSWER: Wrong.EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these were Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.Sam Gripp obviously doesn't understand the difference between the Received Text and the Byzantine Textform. Do you?

Oh boy... buckle yer seatbelts, y'all! LOLwell, do you?

Oh boy... buckle yer seatbelts, y'all! LOLNo, its strap on your helmet. :-)

I'm getting a reputation here that I don't really relish! :-? I am not trying to win anything, and not trying to demolish anyone's trust in the KJV. But when folk say 'this is so and so...' I shall ask awkward questions, like 'who says so?'In the early days of my membership of SI I had one poster who wanted to correct the Greek by reference to the KJV. Old sayings about 'carts and horses' and their relative order came to mind!Why are we so afraid of other versions? We don't need to hide our heads in the sand, there are perfectly reasonable reasons as to why we should believe in the primacy of the Byzantine Textform. My concern is that we so quickly adopt a siege mentality of 'I've made my mind up, please don't confuse me with the facts!' 8-)

Actually, instead of you asking us if we know the difference... why not educate us?You're going to need a big bag of popcorn!Let's keep it as simple as possible. I will leave out the Western and Alexandrian textforms altogether. I regard them as less reliable; this is my own personal judgment on the evidence of expert witnesses.Old Erasmus created a Greek Text. This is important to understand. He did not find a perfect version of anything; he used approx 6 old manuscripts and collated the information he found there. Where they differed he made judgments about which he felt represented best the autographs (original writings of Paul etc). An earlier scholar Ximenes had done a much more thorough work but Erasmus beat him to the press. Later another Greek scholar assembled another Greek text, building on the work of Erasmus; his name was Stephens or Stephanos and his Greek Text was published in 1550. Later another Greek scholar assembled another Greek Text building on the work of Erasmus and Stephanos; this was Elzevir and it was published in 1624. The texts of Stephanos and Elzevir are very similar, but it is Elzevir’s text which brought in the phrase ‘Textus Receptus’ or Received Text. This work was still based on a very small number of manuscripts.Although these Greek Text editions were based on a small number of actual manuscripts the family of manuscripts which they came from was much larger. This larger family of manuscripts is known as the Byzantine Textform or the Majority Text. It is important to understand that the Majority Text is the Byzantine Textform and NOT the Received Text. The Received Text is a small sample of manuscripts which belong to the Byzantine Textform.Maurice Robinson writes:1. From the beginning of the modern critical era in the nineteenth century the Byzantine Textform has had a questionable reputation. Associated as it was with the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text "late and secondary," due both to the relative age of the extant witnesses which provide the majority of its known support and to the internal quality of its readings as subjectively perceived. Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032.2. Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner. Rather, the Byzantine Textform is the form of text which is known to have predominated in the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century. The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission. Various attempts have been made in this direction, postulating either the "AD 350 Byzantine recension" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort, or the current "process" view promulgated by modern schools of eclectic methodology. Yet neither of these explanations sufficiently accounts for the phenomenon, as even some of their own prophets have declared.Have a read through the above, trying not to get too much popcorn on it, and let me know if there are parts that need more explanation.

I would like to humbly submit my own 2 cents if I may. I am not an avid KJV fan. I enjoy it for its historicity, but am partial to the NASB. A far (and I do mean FAR) more learned man than I has recommended it and, even in comparison to the KJV, cannot fault the soundness of his doctrine. I am by no means a linguist. I love the intricacies of language, but have not studied them in depth. Having said that, I find that we must be careful when referencing the works of other men in support of positions, even the early church fathers. Many of them introduced and espoused heresies which exist in some form even today. Irenaeus promoted the fallacy that Peter was influential in founding the church in Rome when there is no record that Peter ever went to Rome. He also wrote that all churches should agree with the church in Rome in all things. Tertullian was a staunch supporter of infant baptism. There are other examples that show that within the first few hundred years of the church doctrine had been corrupted, but what is even more troubling is that it is found within the first generation church. Aside from tradition, what do we know of the early apostles? What do the Scriptures tell us of Thaddeus and Thoams and Bartholomew and Simon the Zealot and Matthias and James bar Alpheus (forgive the Jewish rendering) and Philip (the apostle, not the deacon) and Andrew after the day of Pentecost? We know that the James referred to in the book of Acts and who was the leader in the church in Jerusalem was the brother of Jesus and not one of the original twelve. What we know of them, primarily, is that, in opposition to the command of Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8), they remained in Jerusalem, even when persecution scattered everyone else (Acts 8:1). Paul even mentions in his letter to the Colossians that only 4 "of the circumcision" -- Jewish -- were fellow workers with him for the Kingdom of God. What of those who saw Jesus face to face? The KJV is a much-venerated translation, but is not without its difficulties, as has already been noted. Any translation must be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit because, while God's Word is not subject to fallacy, each translation, transliteration or paraphrase is subjected to the personality or agenda (as in the case of King James -- who authorized a translation in 1603, not 1611. It was completed in 1611) of the one producing it. I must also say I was pleased to read through this entire thread and find civility reigning. We can feel strongly about our positions, but never can we afford to degenerate to incivility. That's just not appropriate for servants of the King.Yours Humbly,Alan