Why is the KJV superior to modern Bibles?

[John81]

I agree that we should hold fast to truth' date=' John, but that truth should be subjected to and challenged against the Word of God on a daily basis. Problems can arise if we're holding so fast to a truth that we find Scripture to back it up rather than letting it be our source for truth.[/quote']

While I wasn't explicit, by "truth" I was referring to that which is biblically true. If God shows us the truth in His Word or guides us to understand the truth in His Word, then we know that it is indeed the truth.

I'm speaking of clear biblical truth here and not someones subjective opinion.

[Guest Guest]

It is always best to speak of clear Biblical truth instead of someone's subjective opinion. :smile

[Jerry]

Oh okay. How do we know that the Majority Text' date=' the family of which the Textus Receptus belongs to, is correct then? How do we know that we can trust it instead of older texts like the Vaticanus and Synaticus.[/quote']

They are not older - their text stream is younger. Consider, you buy two books. One is your favourite one. You keep wearing it out and have to buy a new copy every couple of years. The other one you buy years later, but never really cared for it - probably never even finished reading it. If someone looks at your bookshelf and sees your favourite one and the one you didn't really like side by side, which one are they going to think has been around longer? The less favourite one - because you never used it. Would they be right? No. The other one was continually replaced because you kept wearing it out.

That is the same thing here with Bible manuscripts. Yes, the oldest Greek copies we have are those two manuscripts - but the Bible critics are wrong in their conclusions. They are not more reliable because they are "older" and less used.

[Pastorj]

They aren't even the oldest any longer. A papyri was found that comes from the Byzantine line that was dated in the early 2nd century. I will have to look it up. Just checking in this morning before going to church

[Guest Guest]

They aren't even the oldest any longer. A papyri was found that comes from the Byzantine line that was dated in the early 2nd century. I will have to look it up. Just checking in this morning before going to church

Interesting. :smile How complete was this papyri meaning which books of the Bible were included? Also, what is the name of this papyri so I can look it up?

[Guest Guest]

Interesting. I never thought of it that way. Thanks. :smile

[John the Baptist]

Oh okay. How do we know that the Majority Text, the family of which the Textus Receptus belongs to, is correct then? How do we know that we can trust it instead of older texts like the Vaticanus and Synaticus. :puzzled:

The Alexandrian text or earlier text goes back as far as 125 or 135 A.D. We have a fragment of the gospel of John that goes back to 125 or 135 A.D. It is a papyrus called p 52. The Siniaticus is 4th Century A.D.The Vaticanus is 4th or 5th Century A.D. We have many papyri that are 2nd and 3rd Centtury A.D. The Textus Receptus earliest manuscript is abouot 9 or 10 Century A. D. The Byzantine manuscripts did not become the majority until the 9th Century and after. There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the 4th Century A.D. The reason the Byzantine manuscripts agree so much is because most of these were produced by scribes at a later date when many change had been made by Scribes to the later manuscripts. this is why there is more variation between the earlier manuscripts and the later byzantine text or majority text. With the earlier text we can better get back to the original text of the New Testament.

[Jerry]

John, quit pushing your Critical Text biased info on this KJVOnly website. Thank you.

We do not agree with what you are stating here. The TR is the preserved text and goes back to the first century, regardless of how old the earliest copy is. There are translations of the TR in other languages as early as the start of the 2nd century - with the same readings and passages that the CT removes or calls into question. That tells us that the TR is the oldest text stream, regardless of your claims.

[Guest Guest]

John, quit pushing your Critical Text biased info on this KJVOnly website. Thank you.

We do not agree with what you are stating here. The TR is the preserved text and goes back to the first century, regardless of how old the earliest copy is. There are translations of the TR in other languages as early as the start of the 2nd century - with the same readings and passages that the CT removes or calls into question. That tells us that the TR is the oldest text stream, regardless of your claims.

Very interesting information. :smile

[John the Baptist]

John, quit pushing your Critical Text biased info on this KJVOnly website. Thank you.

We do not agree with what you are stating here. The TR is the preserved text and goes back to the first century, regardless of how old the earliest copy is. There are translations of the TR in other languages as early as the start of the 2nd century - with the same readings and passages that the CT removes or calls into question. That tells us that the TR is the oldest text stream, regardless of your claims.

Would you mind sharing with me the documentation for the early date of these translations.

[Danny Carlton]

The Alexandrian text or earlier text goes back as far as 125 or 135 A.D. We have a fragment of the gospel of John that goes back to 125 or 135 A.D. It is a papyrus called p 52. The Siniaticus is 4th Century A.D.The Vaticanus is 4th or 5th Century A.D. We have many papyri that are 2nd and 3rd Centtury A.D. The Textus Receptus earliest manuscript is abouot 9 or 10 Century A. D. The Byzantine manuscripts did not become the majority until the 9th Century and after. There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the 4th Century A.D. The reason the Byzantine manuscripts agree so much is because most of these were produced by scribes at a later date when many change had been made by Scribes to the later manuscripts. this is why there is more variation between the earlier manuscripts and the later byzantine text or majority text. With the earlier text we can better get back to the original text of the New Testament.

Except that the dead sea scroll agree with the TR, and not with either of the "earlier" texts.

[kevinmiller]

Not to be picky, but I don't really see how this argument is applicable. It's pretty much conjecture to begin with. Also, they didn't have printers back then that they could just order up another copy. I think it's pretty hard to tell which copy was used more frequently. And I think that they go on more than how it looks to determine its age.

[Kubel]

Except that the dead sea scroll agree with the TR' date=' and not with either of the "earlier" texts.[/quote']

What part of the TR does the DSS agree with?

[UrbanChristian]

I would like to interject with some material that really helped me when I was trying to sort out the King James issue. The material is taught by James Knox whom I find to be a very solid teacher, and it answered a lot of the question that I had, some of which I have seen asked here. They are in MP3 format, and they go very in depth, so there are quite a few files.

http://www.biblepreachingarchives.org/audio/James%20W.%20Knox/KJV/

And just remember, God if fully capable of looking after his word, preserving it, and using Men to translate it into the English language perfectly, without error. To assume that there is no perfect translation, is to assume that God is incapable of keeping his promise.

[deputydog530]

UrbanChristain wrote;
To assume that there is no perfect translation, is to assume that God is incapable of keeping his promise.

:amen: