A New Testament professor is setting the world of Bible scholarship on fire with his claim that newly discovered fragments of early Christian writings could include a first-century version of the Gospel of Mark, from the same century in which Jesus and the apostles lived.
Daniel B. Wallace of the Dallas Theological Seminary made the stunning announcement during a Feb. 1 debate with Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today....
read your link, not sure who the person is that he is refuting as I have not encountered his work. From what I can ascertain it is standard response I have heard time and again. Unfortunately I have read and studied too much to buy into that. sorry nice try though
Jim I just have to say going back top my original post was about fragments and that my Bible was complete. I didnt attack yours you immediately attacked mine. For anyone interested in good scholarship on the subject I recommend Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel Gipp's, Thd. Jim all the best with your watered down bibles and your not so watered down ego.
Well Jim, you may believe the advertising hype on this and on every other modern version; and you may have looked at a couple of verses to see how they read. But to you, and to all other believers, I say that a scholarly approach to analysing any new Bible is necessary before adopting it or recommending it. Too many evangelicals embraced the NIV when it came out, based on what? A glance? The expensive hype? The voice of contemporary liberals - followers of W & H? Pah!
As I have pointed out also in times past, and that's I think you're a newcomer here, James, I have rarely if ever criticized anyone for using the KJV and especially if that is their personal preference. The ushers in my church don't go up and down the aisles checking on the version of Bible that people are using. I only get worked up when the KJV is pushed as the only valid version of the Bible, sometimes I think even in any language. So, James, we do disagree, and what has surprised many people is the KJVOs' for not even tolerating The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21Â®, which many of us consider an all too slavish copy of the AV except in using modern English. When that version is also tossed on the pyre, many of us begin to think some people look on the AV has Muslims do the Koran.
Jim your talking but your not listening so this is the point where we agree to disagree. I really only kept the conversation going for the others who might be listening in. It was fun in a weird sort of way...
Well, John MacArthur has his commentaries only in reliable Bibles, which the KJV isn't. You didn't read what John Ankerberg and John Weldon had to say and even more to the point,
Drs. Ankerberg & Weldon wrote: In fact, the NKJV followed the Greek text of the Textus Receptus throughout the New Testament and "anywhere the NKJV appears to differ from the Greek text used by the KJV translators, it is because it has corrected the KJV departures from the Textus Receptus. Consequently, the NKJV adheres more closely to the Textus Receptus than does its predecessor the KJV".
Are you talking about the marginal notes in the NKJV? I will say that the marginal notes are more accurate than the main text, because they are based on a better Greek text, Textus Receptus. There are also obvious errors that the NKJV group didn't make that the AV group did. Anyway further information on the New King James Version or for that matter then the version you should accept he 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21Â®).
Wrong again Jim the nkjv sides ignores textus and sides with Alexandrian 1,200 times it omits some very archaic words here's a quick list and how many x... Omits 'LORD' 66 times, 'God' 51 times, ' heaven' 50 times, ' repent' 44 times, 'blood' 23 times, 'hell' 22 times, ' Jehovah' entirely and more...it also replaces the Masoretic Hebrew OT with the corrupt Septuagint. So no in fact I think NKJV may be the worst because it styles itself as the same but it is not. Hmmm, deception about bibles who would do such a thing, we are all after the truth aren't we? As for John' s position I don't have to read to hear him parrot the contemporary 'scholars' position it's the same. And I know that because I see his bible for sale in the NASB, ESV and NKJV. Enough said thanks for the dance.
The vulgate was corrupt, God preserved his word through the Greek church not the apostate roman church. When the Ottoman Turks asked Constantinople and the greek manuscripts made their way into the western part of the empire, it produced revival and eventually the reformation. Your reading the wrong books. Textual critics sit in jjudgement of the word instead of letting the word judge them. The KJV is not God's preserved word because it is the best selling book of all time. And just because the corrupt vulgate was the only bible in the western empire because Rome destroyed the competition doesn't mean it was a good bible, nor that God had failed to preserve His word. Back to the drawing board friend.
Al Maxey wrote: The major concern of those embroiled in the "Translation Debate" that is raging today, however, is that far too many advocates of the KJV place undue importance upon this one translation. It is almost literally worshipped!! The concept of "one translation for all people for all time" is simply ludicrous, and displays only the foolishness and ignorance of those who make such ridiculous claims. Even the KJV translators themselves wrote, "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." Such a limited view also does not take into consideration all the other languages of the world. If the KJV is the only infallible version (as some claim .... "The version the apostle Paul used!"),
Really Bob Jones, wow let me forget the 400 years of history and the volumes of information I have read now that I know Bob Jones said that. Thanks man. I almost made the mistake of thinking my Bible was without error. Start your research with the text that they were translating from and you'll discover that only the KJV uses the Recieved text and the Maseoretic Old Testament Hebrew. The straw man arguments you are making are not in the right ballpark but thanks anyway.
Bob Jones Jr wrote: Besides the terrible compromise and apostasy which we see around us, there are a number of movements which pose a threat to Bible believing Christianity in our day. They are tangents which will carry a man away from serving the Lord as he ought.
Religiously, I think perhaps the silliest idea abroadâ€”and one which is calculated to divide the people of Godâ€”is the idea that there is some sort of special inspiration attached to the Authorized Version of Scripture commonly called in America "The King James Version."...
There are today many false translations and paraphrases of the Scripture which those who love the Bible must oppose, but to say that this one translation has about it inspiration which is not found anywhere else is just plain silly. Moreover, it is a heresy because it implies that God did not completely inspire the original manuscripts and therefore in 1611 He had to add inspiration.
Bob Jones, Jr. on KJVonlyism Ah, to be helpful again, one doesn't have to spend a penny on getting a 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible, you can just download the e-sword program and get it that way. This is the only way I would do it.
Gee Jim you spend an awful lot of time telling me how my Bible is incomplete. Aren't you just helpful Harry. God Authorized my KJV and I have heard all the bogus arguments more than you can imagine and frankly I don't care what "they" say I believe the Word and I believe God.