Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Members
47 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

The most widely used and read Bible before the KJB was the Geneva Bible. And every version before the KJB had the apocryphal books. No big conspiracy.

It took almost 70 years for the KJB to overtake the Geneva Bible. It was not an immediate acceptance like some will teach. 

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English, the King James Bible.  

Edited by swathdiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I believe you're quite correct.  I have in my possession and like my Geneva Bible.  However, the Holy Spirit continued to direct me to God's PERFECT and preserved Word in the English...

Ditto.

On 5/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, swathdiver said:

lacking perfection like the Geneva bible.      

You could also p.m. me some "lacking perfection" information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 3:34 PM, Genevanpreacher said:

I am of the opinion that, although the Sin. and Alex. manuscripts may be pretty old (which is very questionable), I think the reason they were not used by the 'right' translators is - they didn't know about them.

Those manuscripts were never used by any group claiming to be Christians, so what would make us think Christians would use them?

There were plenty of 'alternate translations' amongst the good manuscripts for the translators to deal with.

Just leaf through a 1611 printing and you will see well over a 1000 alternate translations in the gloss.

These guys had quite the job in ascertaining which 'wording' to use.

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

I can't find any source material online about Tyndale knowing about Vaticanus. Do you have a source I can look into?

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

As I understand, Tyndale not only knew about the Vaticanus, but he read it and rejected it as being to different from all other available books. Tischendorf didn't exactly 'discover' it. As for Sinaiticus, a contemporary of Tischendorf claimed to have been the writer of it, that he had made it as a gift for the Czar of Russia, using old papyrus, not to be a forgery, but just to look old. I don't recall his name off the top of my head, but apparently he DID have the chops to make it. Interestingly, to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink. So its possible, even probably it didn't even exist in the 17th century.

Okay his name was Constantine Simonides was the man who said he wrote it. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

Yes, Big T didn't 'discover' it.

This link says as much -

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/

Big difference in time there - 1481 to Big T's time of 1844.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

Our pastor has got into some of the false garbage which began to be taught even during the time of the Apostles. Over the course of history these false teachings keep coming back up again and again. The devil attacked quickly and hasn't relented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/24/2016 at 9:47 AM, Ukulelemike said:

to this day, no part of the Sinaiticus has been tested for authenticity, not paper or ink.

This statement runs counter to my earlier statement.  Yours is correct.  I confused the testing of the ink with MS 2427 (Archaic Mark), which was tested and found to date no earlier than the 1700s.  Nestle's 28th edition Greek NT is based almost entirely (for the book of Mark) on this fraudulent work.

As early as last year the Sinaiticus was to be tested and it was cancelled.  Doing so would put a billion dollar industry of the devil's at risk.  Now that we can see it online, it's quite easy to tell that this is a fraud, for God is not the author of confusion.  None of my teachers would have accepted this garbage as even a rough draft, it's that sloppy and poorly written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 5/30/2016 at 1:02 PM, MountainChristian said:

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!).

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plustwo heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

 

Wow, I thought junk like that only happened in modern times.

So is there some proof that the English Bibles of the 1500's and 1600's knew about such a text? They all had these same books in them.

The KJB did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well many of the gnostic books were written in the third-fifth centuries, so they have antiquity. But as you say, age isn't the point. In fact, contrary to the critical position, greater age can be a negative because it means no one found it good enough to use, so it remained intact far longer than it would if it was good and used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do find it interesting that when it comes to Christianity they claim the older texts have to be viewed as the most accurate and most reliable, yet for other works these days it's often pointed out early printings often have errors that were corrected in later printings.

An annoying factor is those people, especially prevalent online, who love to post pithy statements claiming the KJB is full of errors, that there are thousands of ancient copies of the Bible and none of them agree with one another, that Christianity has no factual basis. Then people flood in to "like" or post supporting comments to these. Never mind anti-Bible posting contained no factual basis of support.

There is no simple pithy response that would even be considered and no way to put forth a factual response without a large posting. Thus, the anti-Bible postings most often go unchallenged and more and more people believe such lies or have the lies they already believe reinforced.

Sorry, not really sure why that came to mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...