Talk:King James Bible

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

Seeing liberalism in every closet

The idea that the KJV needs to be corrected due to gender neutral language is unwarranted. In the examples listed, "one crying in the wilderness" in Luke 3:4 does not have a word for man (nor in Is. 40:3), and "one" is used as it fits the solitary meaning which "one crying in the wilderness" is meant to convey, while leaving no other conclusion that the one spoken of is a man (John the Baptist).

"One mightier than I" in Luke 3:16 again lacks a word for man, while the proceeding text leaves no doubt as to who it is, and thus cannot be accused of promoting feminism, while rendering it "he who is mightier" would add two more words which are not there.

In Mark 9:17, the Greek word for one in "one of the multitude" is rightly translated one, and is gender-inclusive, but one serves to convey the contrast of one out of many, which again, the proceeding text (v. 20) disallows rendering to be a women.

As for the reasoning that use of the "children of God" implies "submission that might be more characteristic of Islam than Christianity", this the both absurd and liberal. The Greek word used for children ("uihosin"), "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God", (Mt. 5:9) does not denote gender, but usually kinship, and it is certain it cannot be restricted to men, and as such is best rendered "children", (and it hardly applies to Islam). Likewise in all its uses as "children of God" (Lk. 30:36; Gal. 3:26; 1Jn. 3:10; 5:2) it rightly denotes both men and women, young and old. Another word (teknon) translated children in "children of God" (Jn. 11:52; Rm. 8:16,21; 9:8) more precisely means "child," and is used for both genders.

And even if neutralizing the gender by using children somehow effects submission, contrary to anarchists and liberals, the Bible clearly teaches submission to God, and to those in authority (and just dissent as well), and that man is the head of the women. The use of "children of God" in modern versions is far more than the judicious use seen in the KJV, which clearly upheld headship of the male. Thus, not such changes are needed, but we must, "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." (1 Cor. 16:13cf. 1Sam. 4:9)

As for the KJV referring to to "Holy One of God" rather than "Holy Son of God" in Luke 4:34, the fact is that there is no word for either Son or One, and would be literally rendered simply as Holy, but One better upholds the One true God, versus many, and spoken by demons this is more of a confession.

KJV Conservative

The KJV emphasizes the existence of hell, danger of abortion and homosexuality, is anti-feminist, and has supplemented conservative christianity since its creation in 1611. The KJV is the version that Conservapedia itself is using for the Conservative Bible Project translation. Usually, christians that use the KJV are conservatives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

I think you have a valid point here. 'arguably feminist language, such as "prophetess"'. Huh? Oscars are not gven for the politically incorrect term "actress" anymore, and rather uses the patriarchal, gender neutral, and politically correct term "Actor" for females. One rarely hears the term "actress" anymore for fear of being canceled. RobSFree Kyle! 15:58, September 30, 2021 (EDT)

"Better translations" so-called

Consistent with the trans most predominate among liberal, this page (and project) promotes the hypothesis that older must be better, and that modern translations benefit from better sources. "To be sure they are 'better' in appearance, but certainly not in their content. Remember they are written on expensive vellum; so they ought to be in good shape. They are older, but older than what? They are older than other Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. But they are not older than the earliest versions of the Bible: the Peshitta, Italic, Waldensian and the Old Latin Vulgate: versions which agree with the Majority text. These ancient versions are some 200 years older than Aleph and B." [1]

These so-called better mss contain the greatest percentage of obvious corruptions, and differ from each other.


Regarding Codex Vaticanus, according to The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted . . . that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in (Codex) B. [2]

Codex Vaticanus identifies [indicate] itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son” is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy

Vaticanus omits many portions of Scripture critical to Christian doctrine. Hoskier enumerated 3036 differences btwn Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. A more conservative method shows Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus 1139 times 1139 times, with the Textus Receptus (the Greek Text Underlying the KJV) differing from the Majority Text 420 times. [3]

Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."


Re Codex_Sinaiticus, "The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence."[WP page]

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition…." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." [4]

Although Erasmus (formulator of the Textus Receptus) used only a few Greek manuscripts, his text is in general agreement with 90% to 95% of the 5,000 or more manuscripts available today! The manuscripts he used, were therefore representative of the commonly accepted text.

Westcott and Hort could not understand why the Alexandrian manuscripts were not copied in vast numbers as were the Byzantine manuscripts. They propounded the theory that somebody must have produced the Byzantine Text about the 4th Century. Westcott and Hort called it the "Syrian Text." This theory has absolutely no historical foundation. It is a figment of their imagination to excuse them for rejecting the vast majority of manuscripts. Surely such a major recension of the text, if it had occurred, would have been documented in church history. [5]

Interview with Maurice Robinson (Part 2)

Robinson is a noted scholar is pro-Byzantine is not wholly pro-Textus Receptus

What is the leading argument in your mind for the inferiority of the Alexandrian text type?

“Reasoned transmissionalism”! Had any texttype other than the Byzantine more closely represented the autograph form of the text in any nt book, that texttype should have thoroughly permeated the primary Greek-speaking region of the Empire beyond the first few centuries. Any later-developing “new” texttype would fail to dominate against a presumed liturgically entrenched and widely disseminated “original” Textform. One need only consider in this regard the failure of the “Western” text to gain a substantial hold within the Greek ms tradition; similarly, one can consider the limited and apparently “localized” nature of the Alexandrian texttype. Westcott and Hort acknowledged that the Byzantine Textform dominated the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire from the mid-4th century onward...

as Zane Hodges long ago pointed out:

“No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text. Even an official edition of the New Testament - promoted with ecclesiastical sanction throughout the known world - would have had great difficulty achieving this result as the history of Jerome's Vulgate amply demonstrates. But an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination” (Hodges, Appendix C, in Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, 166). [6]

...the Byzantine Textform is the form of text which is known to have predominated in the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century. 3 The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission. Various attempts have been made in this direction, postulating either the "AD 350 Byzantine recension" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort,4 or the current "process" view promulgated by modern schools of eclectic methodology.5 Yet neither of these explanations sufficiently accounts for the phenomenon, as even some of their own prophets have declared.6

3. The alternative hypothesis has been too readily rejected out of hand, perhaps because, as Lake declared, it is by far the "least interesting"7 in terms of theory and too simple in praxis application: the concept that the Byzantine Textform as found amid the vast majority of MSS may in fact more closely reflect the original form of the NT text than any single MS, small group of MSS, or texttype; further, that such a theory can more easily explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform with far fewer problems than are found in the alternative solutions proposed by modern eclectic scholarship. To establish this point, two issues need to be addressed: first, a demonstration of the weaknesses of current theories and methodologies; and secondly, the establishment of the case for the Byzantine Textform as an integrated whole, in both theory and praxis. New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority Maurice A. Robinson

An honest translator will allow God’s interests, as the Author, to supersede the reader’s preferences. As Martin Luther put it: "I have been very careful to see that where everything turns on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not lightly departed from it. I preferred to do violence to the German language rather than to depart from the Word."

It is notable that the translators of the KJV and a few other versions showed their regard for the sanctity of the original text by employing italic script: They used italics to distinguish words that they had to insert for good English sense from words that actually corresponded to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words.

Regrettably, a new approach to Bible translation, "Dynamic Equivalence," arose some 50 years ago. [7]

Note to add to article, market share of the translation

Quick Note to add to article, market share of the translation. Conservative (talk) 14:04, January 25, 2022 (EST)