(Adding categories) Tag: categoryselect |
(→Links) Tag: sourceedit |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The KJV uses the Masoretic and Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is also known as the majority text, because there are around 5400 manuscripts which agree exactly. It is the older minority Alexandrian manuscript ''copies'' which differ on key points with the Majority Text ''copies''. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Modern translations use the minority(1% of 5400) Alexandrian text. The argument is that because these minority manuscript '''copies''' are older it more accurately reflects the original letters from Paul(which no longer exists). This is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur non-sequitur](conclusion doesn't follow logically). The people 2000 years ago who ''copied'' Paul's letters handled the manuscripts and thus they would degrade faster than ''copies'' that weren't handled. With the Alexandrian the indications are<sub>citations?</sub> that this copy weren't handled or read, thus it would have been preserved longer. |
||
| − | |||
| − | To establish the historical accuracy of the ''copies'' as a reflection of the actual words of Paul, one would use the Majority text, since more people were able to vet for the accuracy of the ''copies''. The Alexandrian is a Gnostic corrupted manuscript, subtle but deliberate errors were introduced to undermine the deity of Jesus Christ<sub>citations</sub>. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Thus the term ''Bible'' isn't defined because it is not clear to which manuscript is being referred to. |
||
| − | |||
| − | There are no translations of the Textus Receptus manuscript today published in modern day English, only 400 year old English. Like with the monkey [[Common Ancestor]] debate there is a game with words that obfuscates the following facts: |
||
| − | * The English of the KJV itself isn't the issue but the manuscripts used in translating the KJV, which were the majority text(about 5350 copies) only and specifically not the Alexandrian text(around ? copies). |
||
| − | * Modern day English translations(NIV, RSV) are more readable but they incorporate the Alexandrian manuscript '''''copies'''''. The KJV has poetic ring to it that makes it easier to remember key concepts. Paul wrote ".....he took captivity captive....." , meaning that Christ took captive Satan who held us in bondage. This poetry isn't found in the other translations. |
||
| − | * The original letters that Paul and the other authors wrote no longer exist, we only have copies. Scholars are deceitfully referring to the ''originals'', knowing they don't exist. |
||
| − | |||
| − | In other words, the primary issue isn't the type of English a manuscript(copy of original that no longer exists) was translated from, but what did the actual manuscript copy contain. Some modern translations are therefore an accurate representation of the Alexandrian, while the KJV is the only publication that accurately expresses the majority text and not the Alexandrian text. |
||
| − | |||
| − | The problem with the Alexandrian is that it leaves out key passages about the deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. This is a separate issue from the version of English one wishes to translate it in. |
||
| − | |||
| − | === Argument in progress === |
||
| − | * http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/22.htm |
||
| − | * http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22%3A18-19&version=KJV |
||
| − | |||
| − | :I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book |
||
| − | |||
| − | Revelation has the judgement as to anyone who adds or subtracts from the text ..... of this book...(Revelation). This judgement will certainly come on the Gnosis pagan 2000 years ago who corrupted Paul's '''copies'''. |
||
| − | |||
| − | The question is what about today? If I give a person a copy of translation of the Alexandrian, making it clear how it differs from the majority text, in what way could the judgement come down on me. |
||
| − | |||
| − | One could therefore argue that this judgement is reserved only to those with an intent to lie and deceive about how the Alexandrian differs from the Majority text and the main focus of the judgement of Revelation is reserved for those individuals 2000 years ago only to a certain extent. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Others could come to a different conclusion. |
||
=== Links === |
=== Links === |
||
| − | * http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Riplinger linked to from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aelaVs1ppEM Hovind KJV youtube letter reading] and [http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=721151427121 James white sermonaudio podcast on the issue]. Riplinger opposes James White |
+ | * http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Riplinger linked to from [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aelaVs1ppEM Hovind KJV youtube letter reading] and [http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=721151427121 James white sermonaudio podcast on the issue]. Riplinger opposes James White. White replies to Hovind here again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6FsJqf6w0 |
* http://www.kjv1611.org/ Sells Old Scofield KJV commentary Bible 1911 version around. After Scofield's death the publishers amended the commentaries by Scofield, which did not reflect his views. |
* http://www.kjv1611.org/ Sells Old Scofield KJV commentary Bible 1911 version around. After Scofield's death the publishers amended the commentaries by Scofield, which did not reflect his views. |
||
* http://www.baptistink.com/Old-Scofield-Bibles-s/288.htm kjv1611 seems to have removed the old Scofield from some reason. See Ruckman on this for a possible reason. |
* http://www.baptistink.com/Old-Scofield-Bibles-s/288.htm kjv1611 seems to have removed the old Scofield from some reason. See Ruckman on this for a possible reason. |
||
| Line 47: | Line 17: | ||
Most Prostestant churches view the Apocrapha as having some value as a secondary source, but do not consider it to be equal to the Bible. The "Book of Mormon", on the other hand, is considered heresy. |
Most Prostestant churches view the Apocrapha as having some value as a secondary source, but do not consider it to be equal to the Bible. The "Book of Mormon", on the other hand, is considered heresy. |
||
| + | |||
| + | https://ia601409.us.archive.org/33/items/newtestamentofou00beze/newtestamentofou00beze.pdf Bible from 1515 by Beze http://archive.org/details/newtestamentofou00beze 1515 trasnlation with commentary |
||
[[Category:TauTology]] |
[[Category:TauTology]] |
||
[[Category:Theology]] |
[[Category:Theology]] |
||
Latest revision as of 10:03, 2 March 2016
Links[]
- http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/home.html by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Riplinger linked to from Hovind KJV youtube letter reading and James white sermonaudio podcast on the issue. Riplinger opposes James White. White replies to Hovind here again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6FsJqf6w0
- http://www.kjv1611.org/ Sells Old Scofield KJV commentary Bible 1911 version around. After Scofield's death the publishers amended the commentaries by Scofield, which did not reflect his views.
- http://www.baptistink.com/Old-Scofield-Bibles-s/288.htm kjv1611 seems to have removed the old Scofield from some reason. See Ruckman on this for a possible reason.
- http://archive.org/details/Update_NIV_NKJV_NASB
- http://www.kjv1611.org/BBB/2011/Aug.pdf Do a search for Scofield in this article by Ruckman. Note that Ruckman's tone is inappropriate , which makes it difficult to distill the logic of his arguments.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/09/20/0134223/why-are-some-hell-bent-on-teaching-intelligent-design?sdsrc=popbyskid As someone who has done Biblical translations...
There has been much study done on the various texts, and ones found from quite a long time ago, e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls. What has been found is that the "Old Testament" was kept very rigorlessly and was virtually unchanged after centuries. The Levite Priests in charge of copying the texts would typically destroy copies that had even a single stroke out of place. Yes, others outside the temple also made copies, but they were not considered authoritative copies - and those copies would usually end up with commentary as well.
Most of the debate about texts does not occur over the "Old Testament" texts written in Hebrew, but the "New Testament" texts written in Greek. The entire "New Testament" was written first in Greek; Aramaic versions would have been translations much like our English versions are. Quite a few of the texts for the "New Testament" have been proven to be passed down without change; the issue comes in that there has had to be many comparisons done as monks would write their commentaries in the margins in many cases and those commentaries became hard to decipher.
Regarding what is considered to be the "Canonical" text - that is what makes up the official Bible - that was settled in 300 A.D and has not changed since. There is a secondary set of books called the Apocrapha that some consider to be part of the Bible, however those books did not meet the requisite criteria for the council in 300 A.D for them to be considered "Canonical" texts. Many things, like David Brown's DaVinci Code, rely more on the Apocrapha texts to do what they do.
Most Prostestant churches view the Apocrapha as having some value as a secondary source, but do not consider it to be equal to the Bible. The "Book of Mormon", on the other hand, is considered heresy.
https://ia601409.us.archive.org/33/items/newtestamentofou00beze/newtestamentofou00beze.pdf Bible from 1515 by Beze http://archive.org/details/newtestamentofou00beze 1515 trasnlation with commentary