Newest Bible Translation 'Scandalous, Pernicious and Fraudulent"
The Bible has been translated into more than 2,000 modern languages. Only one has been a matter of controversy in Israel‚ÄĒa recent modern Hebrew translation of the Bible.
According to an article in Hadassah Magazine, this newest Bible translation has been called scandalous, pernicious and even fraudulent. Some fear that if this modern Hebrew ‚Äútranslation‚ÄĚ is used in schools, the children will grow estranged from the Biblical language.
The defenders of the newest Bible translation claim that Israelis speak Israeli modern Hebrew rather than Hebrew. Gil‚Äôad Zuckermann, a professor of linguistics, maintains that Israeli modern Hebrew is a hybrid of ancient Hebrew, Yiddish, Russian, Polish, Romanian and other languages....
Jim The Westcott and Hort (B and Aleph) Text Was Based Only on the "Crime" of Partial and Unrepresentative Evidence.
"To cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime and a sin, and only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical method." [Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. xii]
Westcott and Hort used only partial evidence and a very unrepresentative sample agreeing with less than 1% of the manuscript history. Ximenes and Erasmus, on the other hand, though also using partial evidence, had a representative sample agreeing with over 99% of the manuscript history." Dean Burgon Soc.
Therefore the KJV/TR is based on better mms evidence than the modern versions such as NASB/NIV.
Wow! TS is shredding' Jim Lincoln. Finally someone with extensive knowledge explaining some truth to ol jimmy. My guess is it won't do much good though. Jim is a closed book. But TS great job and stellar effort!
KJV's TR: Compiled by a long line of Roman Catholic papists, especially a liberal 16th c. priest using a handful of manuscripts, translated by Episcopalians and commissioned by an English king who hated baptists.
NASB's W-H: Compiled by two liberal 19th c. Episcopalians (a priest and a "theologian") who hated baptists, primarily using Romish and eastern "orthodox"-owned manuscripts by a slew of modern liberal translators, all slaves to anti-Christian publishing industry moguls such as Rupert Murdoch.
"‚ÄúThe Revival of Learning produced that giant intellect and scholar, Erasmus. It is a common proverb that ‚ÄėErasmus laid the egg and Luther hatched it.‚Äô The streams of Grecian learning were again flowing into the European plains, and a man of caliber was needed to draw from their best and bestow it upon the needy nations of the West‚Ä¶ Erasmus, during his mature years in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, was the intellectual giant of Europe‚Ä¶ Europe was rocked from end to end by his books, which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the early Fathers‚Ä¶ But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue. Astonished and confounded, the world, deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospels.‚ÄĚ (David Otis Fuller)
"In any event, the fact that Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts during his preparation of the 1516 edition is irrelevant in regards to the reliability of the text underlying the KJV. First of all, no scholar disputes the fact that Erasmus had studied variant readings of the New Testament throughout his life prior to publishing the Textus Receptus. In fact, the study of variant readings in the Greek New Testament did not begin with Erasmus but with scholars such as Thomas Linacre (1460-1524) and John Colet (1467-1519), and even as far back as Jerome (347-420). Although Erasmus spent only two years in front of a handful of Greek manuscripts to compose his first edition, his knowledge concerning the Greek New Testament and its variants did not come solely from looking at these few manuscripts in the two year period. Secondly, the KJV was completed in 1611 ‚Äď almost a century after Erasmus composed his first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516. The KJV translators most likely used the 1598 edition of Beza. At least three-quarters of a century of scholarship had gone into the Textus Receptus by the time of the KJV...." (kjvtoday.com)
PS Don't forget your NASB's two Anglican Liberal writers!!
No, TS, you're using circular reasoning. You haven't given any good reason why we should keep on accepting error for 400 years. considering there the better Bible out anyway, The Geneva Bible Of 1560. You should read the Wikipedia article about, Novum Instrumentum omne. This is the first--published--New Testament and Greek, which was done by Erasmus.
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote: The KJV was translated by the Church of England... They reveal their bias by refusing to translate words like ‚Äúbaptism‚ÄĚ and ‚Äúdeacon,‚ÄĚ because if they did, it would contradict the practice of their church. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha,...
I believe it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.
TS wrote: --- GOD authorised the AV - King James Version, by translating the 1500 year old Textus Receptus into english and other languages in Europe. America and the western nations and used the KJV to build His Church. ---
1) Back dating the TR for the purpose of giving it more credibility is a mite unethical, regardless of its value.
2) The AV is called "authorised" because it was authorised by King James.
Is rubbish to be pushing a work of art that is also a very poor Bible, and not in contemporary English as well, but--
Doug Kutilek wrote: I have repeatedly challenged those who claim to have ‚Äúthe final authority‚ÄĚ in their hand and mock the very idea of the ‚Äúoriginal authority‚ÄĚ view. My challenge is this: ‚ÄúWhich ONE KJV edition is the infallible ONE?‚ÄĚ There is no ‚Äúwiggle room‚ÄĚ here. We are told by the KJVO faction that ‚ÄúGod wrote only one Bible‚ÄĚ and that ‚Äúthings which differ are not the same.‚ÄĚ So, tell me straight out: which one KJV edition is the infallible one. It must be only one (if any at all), not two or three, or the KJV editions taken collectively‚Ä¶
Jim Lincoln wrote: I would suggest you look at this commentary, you'll see that Erasmus did write the TR.
Rubbish!! Now come on Jim, if God is going to use the KJV for centuries to build His Church, as he indeed did, then during a time of apostasy such as today, when modern version fans such as yourself, support the Anglican Liberals higher criticism versions as you clearly do, are we honestly going to receive any more of your links?
GOD authorised the AV - King James Version, by translating the 1500 year old Textus Receptus into english and other languages in Europe. America and the western nations and used the KJV to build His Church.
John MacArthur wrote: ‚Ä¶Let me recommend a recent book which very carefully discusses the issues. I think you might find it helpful. The author is Donald A. Carson, "King James Version Debate‚Ä¶," published by Baker Book House. I have also enclosed a well-written pamphlet by the president of one of America's leading seminaries, a Greek scholar in his own right, which presents a very balanced view of the King James Version.
Just a final word, keep in mind that the supporters of "God wrote only one Bible" theology have mistakenly equated the 1611 King James Bible with the original manuscripts written in the first century. It is true that God wrote only one Bible, but it is also true that it was not the King James translation.‚Ä¶
Textus Receptus (TR): * Greek NT translated and compiled by Roman Catholic priest, Desiderius Erasmus (A.D. 1516). * Source: Six Greek manuscripts from 12th c. and later. * From this, Luther translated the German Luther Bible including the OT, NT and Apocrypha (A.D. 1534). * From this, King James I later commissioned the Authorized Version including the OT, NT and Apocrypha (A.D. 1611). * English translations: Geneva Bible (A.D. 1560), Bishops' Bible (A.D. 1568); NKJV (A.D. 1982).
Westcott & Hort (WH): * Greek NT translated and "compiled from some of the oldest NT fragments and text that had been discovered at the time" by Anglican Bishop of Durham, Brooke Foss Westcott, and Irish theologian, Fenton John Anthony Hort (A.D. 1881). * Source: Favored Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts. * The Codex Vaticanus text is owned by the Roman Catholic Church. * The Codex Sinaiticus text is owned by the Greek Orthodox Church. * All editions of Nestle-Aland/UBS remain close in textual character to the WH text. * English translations: NASB (A.D. 1971), NIV (A.D. 1978); ESV (A.D. 2001).
Which is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?
Jim Lincoln wrote: the writer of the Textus Receptus, Erasmus
Jim. Erasmus did not "write" the TR.!!
"B.G. Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament" See... Lucian of Antioch
TS, I shun liberal (well also conservative ones also) Catholics such as the writer of the Textus Receptus, Erasmus, but we aren't talking about the New Testament of ...the King James Version a ‚ÄėRoman Catholic Bible‚Äô..., but the Old Testament! This is what the Jewish Bible consists of (and no not The Apocrypha which a proper copy of the AV will contain, though no Jewish Bible would). The Old Testament of the AV is filled with errors--see the Preface to the OT the ASV about that, Prefaces of the ASV. You will find quite a few errors of the Old Testament listed in Dr. Joyner's comments about the KJV, but somewhat ends with this kindly comment,
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote: Anyone who is not willingly ignorant and blind can see that the King James Version is not perfect and not infallible. It is a human translation. It is a good and accurate version in most places....
Jim Lincoln wrote: English either it is an Elizabethan
Mr Lincoln It is not how it is written but more importantly who was involved in contributing to the interpretation. Today you would shun the Liberal Anglicans and rightly so. Yet your modern versions, and you, have received such a Liberal Anglican input from your brothers Westcott and Hort.
"The Westcott and Hort theory chooses the few older MSS rather than the many later MSS. But it is not proved that the oldest are the best; it is not proved that the oldest MSS contain the authentic text. There is reason to suspect the oldest MSS. All are from one region - Egypt, where the climate allows for the preservation of MSS. The oldest MSS differ greatly from each other; "B and Aleph... disagree over 3,000 times in the space of the four Gospels. "15 The very fact that these MSS exist at all may be evidence that the church did not use them." Rev. D.Engelsma
Yes, Chris, as I pointed out they should have a Hebrew Bible with marginal notes pointing out what the word means and contemporary Hebrew.
Anon, I appreciate your humor, because the KJV is that in English either it is an Elizabethan. At least I hope that's the reason for your comments, and not because, Identity: A 'Christian' Religion for White Racists since the KJV is a favorite of those folks. But of course, why think you just meant it as a humorous remark,
Bob Jones Jr wrote: ‚Ä¶Religiously, I think perhaps the silliest idea abroad‚ÄĒand one which is calculated to divide the people of God‚ÄĒis 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."...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.