Lots of "Skolars" On Here.

[Twisted]

 

[Ransom]

You can tell how true it is by the huge font.

But it's not red and in all caps, so it's not that true.

 

[illinoisguy]

Who are the scholars who "fixed" the Bible by taking out the Apocrypha that were in the original AV1611?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You can tell how true it is by the huge font.

But it's not red and in all caps, so it's not that true.

And none of the words end with ?eth?.
Twisted is my 1,000,000,978,376,348th favorite dull, unimaginative troll.

 

[Walt]

You can tell how true it is by the huge font.

But it's not red and in all caps, so it's not that true.

Oh, very droll... nice way to deflect from the issue.

Getting back to the OP, isn't that what happened? The higher criticism in the mid 1800s swept in a host of unbelieving "scholars", who cut away at the text that had been being used for centuries.

The KJV and the Greek text from which comes the New Testament is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the critical text used for most modern versions (the KJV/TR is longer)... that means that someone has significantly added to God's revelation. If you want to insist that the modern versions are correct for leaving, say, Acts 8:37 out of the Bible, then you must condemn the KJV for adding to Scripture.

The NIV, ESV, and others may be good translations, but their source is suspect and corrupt, being the product of unbelievers.


NOTE: Corrected post to make it clear that I meant the KJV/TR is longer, not the critical text.

 

[robycop3]

  Much of whatcha said aint true.  This typical KJVO stuff: "What can I tell the good burghers today that they'll swallow? OK, let's use the 'corrupt text' stuff !"

    Having no REAL EVIDENCE to support their myth, KJVOs  use an old, silly argument, wait a few months, & use it again. Never mind their KJVO myth has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, which automatically makes it false, and their KJV is full of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

"THE KJVO MYTH - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !"

 

[Ransom]

Oh, very droll... nice way to deflect from the issue.

And since we both know a large swath of psycho-fundies equate shouting with conviction, you know it wasn't far off the mark, either.

Getting back to the OP, isn't that what happened?

What, that Satan "decided to use scholars who claim they could fix the Bible"?

Couldn't say for sure what Satan decided to do. Twisted may be on Our Lord Below's mailing list, but I'm not.

The KJV and the Greek text from which comes the New Testament is SIGNIFICANTLY different from the critical text used for most modern versions

Define "significantly," and explain why your definition is a fact rather than an opinion.

(longer)...that means that someone has significantly added to God's revelation.

Funny . . . if you listen to most KJV-onlysts, they complain that the modern versions are shorter than the KJV/TR, and that people have been taking God's words away. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to insist that the modern versions are correct for leaving, say, Acts 8:37 out of the Bible, then you must condemn the KJV for adding to Scripture.

Fine, the KJV is a New Age, New World Order, satanic counterfeit that adds to Scripture.

 

[Twisted]

 

[illinoisguy]

I was there when this picture was taken.  Peter Ruckman had just walked into the room.

And now you know . . . THE REST OF THE STORY!

 

[Twisted]

I was there when this picture was taken.  Peter Ruckman had just walked into the room.

And now you know . . . THE REST OF THE STORY!

LOL!

 

[logos1560]

Oh, very droll... nice way to deflect from the issue.

The NIV, ESV, and others may be good translations, but their source is suspect and corrupt, being the product of unbelievers.

Does your own post deflect from the issue and from some of the actual facts? 

Are you willing to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly?

Would you say that the KJV may be a good translation but some of its sources are suspect and corrupt, being the product of unbelievers?

Some of the actual sources used in the making of the KJV include the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Greek LXX, the Peshitta, and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.   

Were the Hebrew manuscripts that underlie the KJV's Old Testament copied by Jewish believers or unbelievers in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Would you claim that the 1582 Rheims from which the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings was the product of true believers or of unbelievers?

 

[Walt]

And since we both know a large swath of psycho-fundies equate shouting with conviction, you know it wasn't far off the mark, either.

Yes, certainly true.
By the way, sorry for the long delay is finding this post.

What, that Satan "decided to use scholars who claim they could fix the Bible"?

Couldn't say for sure what Satan decided to do. Twisted may be on Our Lord Below's mailing list, but I'm not.



Define "significantly," and explain why your definition is a fact rather than an opinion.

My understanding is that the "critical" Greek text is shorter that the TR by about 3,000 words. That is "significant" (certainly to me and I believe to most people).

Funny . . . if you listen to most KJV-onlysts, they complain that the modern versions are shorter than the KJV/TR, and that people have been taking God's words away. You can't have it both ways.



Fine, the KJV is a New Age, New World Order, satanic counterfeit that adds to Scripture.

At least you're consistent!

By the way, when I quoted your post, it dropped your quote of my original quote, making this much harder to respond to.

 

[Walt]

Funny . . . if you listen to most KJV-onlysts, they complain that the modern versions are shorter than the KJV/TR, and that people have been taking God's words away. You can't have it both ways.

I re-read what I wrote, and the pronouns are confusing. I meant that the KJV/TR is much (well, "significantly") longer than the critical text, but what I wrote was confusing.

 

[Ransom]

By the way, sorry for the long delay is finding this post.

No problem. That's the nature of forums . . .

My understanding is that the "critical" Greek text is shorter that the TR by about 3,000 words. That is "significant" (certainly to me and I believe to most people).

It *sounds* significant. But the Greek New Testament is about 138,000 words long, so that's only a two percent difference in length. And where are those words? When KJV-onlyists cite those 3,000 missing words, there's an implied alarm that the Bible's missing a huge chunk about six pages long. Really, for the most part, it's just isolated words here and there. I write for a living. I could take an average student's term paper, say, and shorten it by 10% just by writing more efficiently--and without losing any content.

At least you're consistent!

What's sauce for the goose, as they say. The KJVers make the mistake of assuming their bad arguments only work in one direction.

By the way, when I quoted your post, it dropped your quote of my original quote, making this much harder to respond to.

Yeah, this forum's software doesn't nest quotes the way the previous software (Simple Machines) did. Which is an improvement, IMO--it's a pain scrolling through ten or more nested quotations just to see "I agree," because someone can't be bothered to pare down what they were replying to.

You can still nest quotes, though: you just have to go into a previous message and do some cut and paste by hand.

Just

like

so.

 

[Walt]

It *sounds* significant. But the Greek New Testament is about 138,000 words long, so that's only a two percent difference in length. And where are those words? When KJV-onlyists cite those 3,000 missing words, there's an implied alarm that the Bible's missing a huge chunk about six pages long. Really, for the most part, it's just isolated words here and there. I write for a living. I could take an average student's term paper, say, and shorten it by 10% just by writing more efficiently--and without losing any content.

Yes, I've heard people talk about new versions cutting out words and removing "shedding of blood" because new versions use "bloodshed" instead of "shedding of blood" - that's a 66% reduction in words, but (at least to me), "bloodshed" and "shedding of blood" have the same meaning.

That's why I was talking about the Greek texts, not the English translations; I believe that the critical text is roughly 3000 words shorter than the TR.

I'll say again that I appreciate the consistency, even in jest -- it irks me when people who are for the modern translations say nice things about the KJV: as I said earlier, if Acts 8:37, Mark 16, and parts of John 8 are not part of the Bible, then the text behind the KJV is wicked and cursed for adding to the Scriptures. If these passages are indeed Scripture, shame on the modern versions for leaving them out or calling them into question.

 

[Walt]

Does your own post deflect from the issue and from some of the actual facts?

Are you willing to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly?

Would you say that the KJV may be a good translation but some of its sources are suspect and corrupt, being the product of unbelievers?

Yes and no (how's that for being on the fence?)

The minutes of the deliberations and discussions among the KJV translators were lost in a fire. We do know that they studied a lot of the existing translations (good and bad) as well as many of the manuscripts. Certainly, some of the sources were suspect, but we don't know how much value they put in the suspect items.

Some of the actual sources used in the making of the KJV include the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, the Greek LXX, the Peshitta, and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

Right; not sure how much these influenced their work; they seem to have mostly followed Wycliffe's work and the popular Geneva Bible.

Were the Hebrew manuscripts that underlie the KJV's Old Testament copied by Jewish believers or unbelievers in the Lord Jesus Christ?

This is why the "yes and no" above -- certainly the Old Testament copying was not done by Christians. But the Jews took the Scriptures very, very seriously, and were very meticulous in making copies of the Holy Scriptures. So, they devoutly believed that they were handling God's word and treated it seriously. Many of the scholars behind the critical text were rank heretics, or merely believed that the Bible was like any other ancient work. Thus, there is a different kind of unbelief at work; clearly, not everyone was an IFB.

Would you claim that the 1582 Rheims from which the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed many renderings was the product of true believers or of unbelievers?

Did they? I thought that they mostly followed Wycliffe? Even if they didn't, one could make the argument that they used words found in the dictionary, which was not put together by believers, but that would be disingenuous.

 

[Ransom]

I'll say again that I appreciate the consistency, even in jest -- it irks me when people who are for the modern translations say nice things about the KJV: as I said earlier, if Acts 8:37, Mark 16, and parts of John 8 are not part of the Bible, then the text behind the KJV is wicked and cursed for adding to the Scriptures. If these passages are indeed Scripture, shame on the modern versions for leaving them out or calling them into question.

But that's just the thing. Why shouldn't we be nice about the KJV? It's the most influential English translation in history, the best effort of its day (and nearly 300 years afterward), and on its own merits a darn good piece of literature.

If I held to the same presuppositions as the KJV-onlyists, then sure, what I said in jest, I could say seriously. But having studied the question in some depth, I recognize that the Bible, like all books, has been handled by fallible human beings. Heck--the textual problems with Shakespeare's works are almost as thorny as those with the New Testament, and Shakespeare existed entirely within the age of print!

Those additions and deletions KJVers attribute to Satanic interference were not done out of malice. We know there were deliberate efforts to corrupt the Scripture in the early church: Marcionism, for example. They were recognized and condemned by orthodox church leaders. At worst, the problems with the present text are unintentional and careless, or, if intentional, they a well-meaning effort to preserve something the scribe thought had been omitted. Some textual experts would say nothing has actually been lost. We simply have uncertainty about what is authentic. These issues about the text of the Bible have been known since the earliest centuries of the church.

I'd much rather have honest uncertainty about the Bible (which is, in the grand scheme of things, virtually insignificant, since if you were to exegete the best and worst examples of a New Testament text, you would not come up with anything remotely like two different religions), than the lie which is the KJV-onlyists veneer of false certainty.

 

[logos1560]

Did they? I thought that they mostly followed Wycliffe? Even if they didn't, one could make the argument that they used words found in the dictionary, which was not put together by believers, but that would be disingenuous.

In my extensive research of the history of the making of the KJV, I have found no evidence that the KJV translators followed the 1300's Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate.

It is Tyndale's that some claim is the source of 70% of the KJV's NT. The KJV translators did not have any Hebrew-English lexicons or Greek-English lexicons to use in their translation decisions since none had yet been made. They only had Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, and those lexicons often gave renderings from the Latin Vulgate as their definition of Hebrew words or their definition of Greek words. There were only brief or short beginnings of anything like an English dictionary since the first comprehensive English dictionary was not printed until 1755.

According to the rules given the Church of England makers of the KJV, the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. The 1560 Geneva Bible was also one of their main English sources. Because the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible were revisions of the Great Bible and the Great Bible a revision of Tyndale's, Tyndale's may be the indirect source with either the Bishops' or Geneva Bibles being the direct source.

The evidence is clear and compelling that the KJV translators also made some use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament made from the Latin Vulgate. There is even first-hand evidence in the notes of one of the KJV translators where that translator directly asserts that the Rheims was the direct source of a rendering used in the KJV.

W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Diarmaid MacCulloch and Elizabeth Solopova asserted that in the KJV “it was possible to see some of the readings of the Doua-Rheims version amid all the work of Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva translators” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 38). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Ward Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). The note of John Bois cited a rendering from the 1582 Rheims [“willing in humility”] and then cited the margin of the Rheims [“willfull, or selfwilled in voluntary religion”] (p. 63). Was the KJV’s rendering “voluntary” borrowed from the margin of the 1582 Rheims? The first-hand testimony of a KJV translator clearly acknowledged or confirmed the fact that the KJV was directly influenced by the 1582 Rheims. KJV defender Laurence Vance admitted that the 1582 “Rheims supplies the first half of the reading” in the KJV at Galatians 3:1 and that the “Rheims supplies the last half of the reading” at Galatians 3:16 (Making of the KJV NT, p. 263).

 

[brianb]

Who are the scholars who "fixed" the Bible by taking out the Apocrypha that were in the original AV1611?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The Apocrypha was accepted by early Protestants because of its historical value. It wasn't considered inspired by God. It was in "Protestant Bibles" but not Holy Scripture in the same way that maps and notes are in modern Bibles including KJV's such as the one I have published by Thomas Nelson. If it is from the Hebrew Bible/OT era why isn't it in the Hebrew Bible but only the Septuagint? I ask this because there are some who argue that the Apocrypha was preserved by God for over 2000 years as part of the Bible but that's not true. Back then manuscripts weren't bound together with a cover saying "Holy Scripture". The fact that they had the Apocrypha doesn't mean it was sacred or canonical. The word apocrypha actually means uncanonical anyways so really they shouldn't be called that if they were considered canonical. Jerome was the one who gave it the name Apocrypha which tells us that it wasn't considered Scripture long before the Protestant. What it does is support Tradition which is on par with Scripture in Catholicism. The Catholic church has most (not all as some think) of the Apocrypha included in their current Bibles.

Now I'm not saying we should reject these books as holy inspired books simply because people in the past rejected them. We should apply scriptural principles such as in 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 which I think can help us to determine if they are holy scripture. Does 1 and 2 Maccabees make one wise unto salvation, are they profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness? Or is it just an interesting but inspiring history similar to that of the Holocaust stories?

 

[logos1560]

The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

This high regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604). Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a public conference at Lambeth with Walter Travers and Thomas Sparks in December of 1583 the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, p. 327). Benjamin Brook also quoted the same above statement made by Whitgift along with the following other statements: “The apocrypha was given by the inspiration of God.“ “You cannot shew that there is any error in the apocrypha. And it has been esteemed a part of the holy scriptures by the ancient fathers” (Lives of the Puritans, II, p. 317). Based on Whitgift’s statements, Samuel Hopkins commented: “I will only observe that the Archbishop of Canterbury insisted that the apocrypha books were part of the Holy Scriptures, were given by inspiration of God, and were without error” (The Puritans, III, p. 45, footnote 3). In the third portion of his Works as edited by John Ayre, John Whitgift is cited as saying or writing the following: “The apocrypha that we read in the Church have been so used of long time; as it may appear in that third council of Carthage, and 47 canon, where they be reckoned among the canonical books of the Scripture. They may as well be read in the church, as counted portions of the old and new testament; and, forasmuch as there is nothing in them contrary to the rest of the Scripture, I see no inconvenience, but much commodity that may come by the reading of them” (Works of John Whitgift, pp. 349-350). William Daubney asserted: “Archbishop Whitgift makes some remarkably strong statements in support of the Apocrypha, in relying to objections: ‘The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and improperly, are Holy Writings, void of error, part of the Bible, and so accounted of in the purest time of the Church and by the best writers; ever read in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent” (Use of the Apocrypha, p. 72; Strype, Life and Acts of John Whitgift, Vol. III, p. 137). Several of the KJV translators who worked with, were taught by, or were associated with Whitgift may have held similar views. Is there any evidence that the KJV translators rebuked or criticized Archbishop Whitgift for publicly maintaining that the books called apocrypha are part of the scriptures? The few Puritans among the KJV translators would likely have disagreed with such high regard for the Apocrypha. It was Archbishop Whitgift that presided over the crowning of James as king of England in July of 1603.

The 1611 edition of the KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha. In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority. In their cross references, did the KJV translators indicate any differences between when they have a reference to a book in the O. T. or N. T. and a reference to a book in the Apocrypha?

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired.