SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
bible1985
Member



Joined: 2008/8/13
Posts: 354


 Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

I was just wondering, i hear their is but is it true. I mean you have people like peter ruckman and gail riplinger defending the kjv only and you have to be in question. I need the complete truth.

 2008/10/22 9:59Profile









 Re: Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Hi folks... just got back in town. Good to see one of my favorite topics come up!

To answer your question, here is a quote from David Cloud concerning this issue:

[i]John Burgon’s research into the text of the scripture through church history has, in some ways, never been equaled. This is particularly true of his research into the quotations from the scriptures of the church leaders of antiquity.

To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D. By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

This testimony of Burgon is not to be taken lightly. He knew as much about the Bible of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries as any man who has lived in the last 200 years. When he says that the Received Text is attested by Greek manuscripts, quotations from ancient church leaders, and ancient Bible versions, he was in a position to know what he was talking about.

The vast majority of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and the writings of church “fathers” support the Received Text. This was a fact known by the Reformation editors. Whereas the textual critics of our day see this as a mere accident of history, the Bible-believing Reformation editors of old saw the hand of God in it. So do we.[/i]

And so do I...

Krispy

 2008/10/22 11:46
bible1985
Member



Joined: 2008/8/13
Posts: 354


 Re:

thank you, i just wish i could see those writings of the early church fathers and how it does compare myself.

 2008/10/22 12:06Profile
BlazedbyGod
Member



Joined: 2007/8/22
Posts: 462


 Re: Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Quote:

bible1985 wrote:
I was just wondering, i hear their is but is it true. I mean you have people like peter ruckman and gail riplinger defending the kjv only and you have to be in question. I need the complete truth.



Is there evidence of the KJV before 400 A.D.-the answer is yes.

John 1:1 In the BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the BEGINNING with God.

 2008/10/22 12:10Profile









 Re:

They are available... you just have to go dig for them.... in the British Museum.

... or amazon... whichever is easiest for you.

Krispy

 2008/10/22 12:10
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I've not been around for a while but it is good to see some things don't change and Krispy is still holding the fort here. ;-)

Imagine a circle with hundreds of manuscripts in it. This circle is what some would call the Byzantine textform. These manuscripts are not identical but they have a distinct family likeness which distinguishes them from that 'other circle' over there which has many fewer manuscripts and is usually called the Western Text.

In the Byzantine circle there are a small number of manuscripts which were known to the scholars of the 16th century. They used these manuscripts to create what they believed the original text had really been. Later some other scholars, with a few more manuscripts, created a document which they believed was what the original documents had looked like; this came to be known as the Received Text.

So the Received Text is based on a few manuscripts from the Byzantine family circle. There are now many hundreds/thousands of manuscripts from these ancient times but they can still, broadly speaking, be separated into the Byzantine family and the Western family.

The KJV is based on the smaller group of manuscripts within the Byzantine family circle. The NKJV is a revision of the KJV but has some information which has come from those other manuscripts in the Byzantine family circle.

Just to save anyone any possible disappointment, the main manuscripts which used to be at the British Museum were transferrred to the British Library some years ago.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/10/22 14:32Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Just to save anyone any possible disappointment, the main manuscripts which used to be at the British Museum were transferrred to the British Library some years ago.



Next time I'm over on your side of the creek I'll keep that in mind!

Good to see you here, brother! I've missed you!

Krispy

 2008/10/22 14:43
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4582


 Re:

The KJV was translated for several years and then published in 1611. This is 1211 years AFTER 400 A.D.

BTW: English wasn't even a language in 400 A.D.

I understand the argument about the superiority of Erasmus' translation known as the [i]Received Text[/i] in 1516. Those who espouse to the superiority of the earlier majority texts ([i]majority[/i] in the official church of the day) make a good argument. Ultimately, however, I cannot embrace that notion as [u]undeniable[/u]. There is a very good argument for what was known as the minority texts too. You can write to the majority of text scholars as to why they also embrace the earlier Alexandrian text types. They have a compelling set of reasons that is often lost or unincluded in these sort of discussions.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/22 15:34Profile









 Re:

To answer the question, you have to know that there was the Recieved text and the Approved text. Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale were each translating from the greek and hebrew, around 1520 A.D., but the difference is that Erasmus was using the recieved and Tyndale the approved. Also, Tyndale translated directly from the original greek and hebrew, something Erasmus didn't. To add to the mix, Erasmus was also a humanist and put writing by Plato and other philosophers on the same level as the N.T. writers. It was from Tyndale that the KJV came into being. Therefore, in aswer to the orginal question, no, there was no KJV (the name King James should give a clue) before 400A.D. Hope this answers your question... :-)

 2008/10/22 18:52









 Re:Approved version? by who, the POPE?



Hello MMia:

I have searched diligently for the past ½ hour for the definition of the term “Approved text”. I have never heard that term applied to scripture. Approved by who? The POPE, Approved by the Gnostics?

I used Google as a search engine and typed “approved Bible versions”, "approved Bible" and found the following information linked to this search:

1. This was one site:

[b]The question posted was:
"Which is the standard bible version used by the Roman Catholic church in the UK? I know that the standard English Bible version used by the Catholic church in the USA is the New America Bible. I was wondering which was the one used in the UK and the rest of the English speaking world...Douay.Rheims, Jerusalem, REB?
Thanks!"[/b]


This is one answer that lists the[b] “approved Bible for the Roman Catholic Church”[/b]
• “Raymo is nearly correct. The New Jerusalem Bible has been[b] approved for liturgical use.[/b]

The[b] King James Version is not approved for use by the Roman Catholic Church.[/b]

This is another answer about “approved” Bible versions:
• We use the Jerusulem Bible published in London by Darton, Longman and Todd.[b] However, other versions are allowed on occasion.[/b]

And finally, one more answer to the same question:

• Douay, and other[b] approved versions.[/b]

As I went through all of the links, the only continuous reference to “Approved” Bible versions had to do with the[b] Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.[/b]

The Catholic Church relies on the [b]minority text[/b], created by the first textual critics, the Gnostics. These are the men behind the Catholic Bible:

1. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.) He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

2. Tatian (150 A.D.) He was a disciple of Justin Martyr. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism. His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

3. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.) Clement was a disciple of Tatian and taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible. He also used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

4. Origen (184-254 A.D.)- Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation. He also stated "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." He was also one of the first textual critics.[b] His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).[/b]

5. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143). These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. [b]Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.[/b]

6. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

[b]The following three men were the ones who used the corrupt mss of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the corrupt Catholic Bible to create a corrupt Bible for the Protestant Church, thus confusing the body of Christ about which version is the correct version for the PROTESTANT- the RECEIVED TEXT, directly from the believing Church, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH?? Or the corrupted text, the "minority text", created by the Gnostics (listed above), who cut and pasted God's Word to conform to their own evil thoughts and ideas about what God should have said?:[/b]

7. Tischendorf (1869) -He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Tischendorf was a[b] liberal theologian.[/b]

8. Westcott and Hort (1881)- They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text.

Statements made by Westcott:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

Statements made by Hort:

"Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."


[b]Textual History of the Bible[/b]
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a

Many Christians are completely unaware that modern Bible versions differ from the King James Bible in a way they never expected … they are not translated from the same Bible text!

The "RECEIVED TEXT" down through history, long before the advent of the printing press, men made copies of the Scriptures by hand.[b] However, they did not all do so with the same attitude toward the Scriptures.[/b] Many made their copies with a sense of spiritual awe, not daring to change a word, because it was the Word of God.[b] Archaeologists have found thousands of these copies from all over the ancient world, and been amazed at how they agree! Truly God did preserve His Word in His church. The text they give us is often called by one of the following names:[/b]

[b] Textus Receptus (Latin for "RECEIVED TEXT"--Received from the true Church, not Rome. The truth is always away from Rome!)

Byzantine Text - because of the part of the world in which we find it

Antiochan Text - the church at Antioch used it [/b]


The "Alexandrian Text"—[b]MMia, this must be the “approved text” you refer to:[/b]

[b]However in Alexandria, Egypt, a group of "scholars" thought they could do better. When they made their copies, they made "corrections" that they thought better presented what the Scriptures should say. Some of their errors were gross blunders (like quoting Malachi and calling it Isaiah) but others were more subtle (slight word changes to take away the deity of Christ). They removed verses they didn't like.

The Alexandrian copyists had one more characteristic … they couldn't agree with each other! Their copies differ not only from the vast majority of existing Scripture texts, but even from each other. A very small number of these manuscripts exist today. This is called the Alexandrian Text.[/b]

[b]Choosing which text to use[/b]

All of our existing copies come from one of the two textual streams described above. [b]We call them "streams" because they are made of copies made from copies. By comparing them and noting their differences, it is easy to determine from which stream each copy came.

Honest scholars understood that if God really kept His promise to preserve His Word, then we would expect to find copies all over the church at large that agree. Sure enough, they found that 95% of all existing copies agreed, coming from the Antiochan (or Byzantine) text, so it was clear that the RECEIVED TEXT, based upon these agreeing copies all over the ancient church, was the correct one. This is the text used by Luther, Tyndale, Calvin, Matthews, Coverdale. When King James commissioned his famous English Bible translation, the scholars naturally used this Received Text.[/b]

Not everyone believed God kept His promise
In the mid nineteenth century, two scholars came along who helped to change everything. Their names were Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brook Foss Westcott. From their personal correspondence, it is clear that Hort and Westcott did not hold a faith comparable to that held by millions of evangelical Christians today. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D., writes:
"It cannot be said that they believed that one could attain Heaven by either works or faith, since both believed that Heaven existed only in the mind of man.

Westcott believed in and attempted to practice a form of Communism whose ultimate goal was communal living on college campus's which he called a "coenobium. "

Both believed it possible to communicate with the dead and made many attempts to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild."

Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"),and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution.

It is obvious to even a casual observer why they were well equipped to guide the Revision Committee of 1871-1881 away from God's Antiochian text and into the spell of Alexandria."
From "The Answer Book" by Samuel Gipp

Gaining positions on the committee to "revise" the King James Bible, Hort and [b]Westcott persuaded the committee to abandon the Received Text which had been preserved by the ancient church. Instead, the committee was convinced to use the Alexandrian text, provided by the Roman Catholic Church who had preserved it.[/b] They accepted the notion that God had not preserved His Word in the ancient Church, but had instead entrusted it to the hand of the Roman Catholic Church, the organization which had hunted and slaughtered Christians who dared possess their own copy of God's Word!

[b]Is this any way to translate a Bible?[/b]

Having sold the Alexandrian text to the revision committee, Hort and Westcott became the gurus of Bible texts. The translators often faced an impossible problem. Having abandoned the broad evidence of history, throwing out 95% of the available copies, they had to decide exactly what each verse should say based upon only 5% of the available evidence. And there was the problem. These few texts could not even agree with each other! How do you decide which is correct?

Enter Hort and Westcott. They decided what the text should say, and the committee dutifully translated it. So instead of the authority of the Bible text coming from the broad evidence of history, it was coming from the intellect of two respected scholars. God doesn't do things that way. A study of the lives and theology of these two men helps explain why their biblical text began to have holes in it … verses were missing!

[b][color=CC0000]It's a simple choice[/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]All modern Bible versions are based upon the work of Hort and Westcott, using the corrupt Alexandrian text.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]The King James Bible is based upon the Received Text. [/color][/b]

[b][color=000000]If you believe that God allowed his Word to be hidden from the church for centuries, only to be revealed much later by the Roman Catholic Church, you will want a modern Bible based upon the Alexandrian text.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]If you believe that God preserved His Word in His church, throughout the centuries, you will want a King James Bible, based upon the historical Received Text. The choice is yours. [/color][/b]

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/history.asp?wpc=history.asp&wpp=a

[b][color=CC0000]This is God's Word from the Bible, from the Old Testament: The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. YOU SHALL KEEP THEM, O LORD, YOU SHALL PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOREVER. The wicked prowl on every side, When vileness is exalted among the sons of men. Psalms 12:6-8

Do you believe God? Do you believe He can do anything? Do you believe God's Word, that says "The WORDS of the Lord are pure WORDS, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times. YOU SHALL KEEP THEM, O LORD, YOU SHALL PRESERVE THEM FROM THIS GENERATION FOREVER."? I believe in God, and I believe God's Word, quoted above.It has been fulfilled before our eyes. We have God's preserved Word, through the believing Church, since the beginning of the Church.[/color][/b]

[b][color=CC0000]We also have mans corrupt word, cut and pieced together by sons of men, the gnostics---not sons of God. All true believers are sons of God, unbelievers are sons of men![/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

MMia wrote:
To answer the question, you have to know that there was the Recieved text and the Approved text. Desiderius Erasmus and William Tyndale were each translating from the greek and hebrew, around 1520 A.D., but the difference is that Erasmus was using the recieved and Tyndale the approved. Also, Tyndale translated directly from the original greek and hebrew, something Erasmus didn't. To add to the mix, Erasmus was also a humanist and put writing by Plato and other philosophers on the same level as the N.T. writers. It was from Tyndale that the KJV came into being. Therefore, in aswer to the orginal question, no, there was no KJV (the name King James should give a clue) before 400A.D. Hope this answers your question... :-)

 2008/10/22 23:58





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy