Origins of the King James Version of the Bible

What they don't teach you at Sunday School.

The first published Greek New Testament appeared in the year 1516. It was edited by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). These manuscripts were part of what is called the Byzantine text family.

Although Erasmus' edition provided a great boost to the study of the New Testament, it had a number of problems. For one thing, none of his sources had the last six verses of the book of Revelation, so Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek! Thus, in his text "several words and phrases may be found that are attested in no Greek manuscript whatsoever."(3) [In the first two editions of his New Testament, Erasmus left out I John 5:7 because it did not appear in any of his Greek manuscripts. That verse reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This omission created a furor, so he promised to include the verse in a later edition if it could be found in any Greek manuscript. One was brought forward, and, although Erasmus did not think the text was genuine, he kept his promise and included the verse. It is now believed to have been a very late and unreliable manuscript, and some think it was forged to include the verse.(4)

Erasmus' Greek text was reworked and reprinted by others including Robert Estienne who divided the text into verses. Theodore Beza then built upon Estienne's work, and his Greek text provided one of the major foundations for the King James Bible. The term Textus Receptus, or Received Text, came from a blurb in another Greek text produced in the early seventeenth century by the Elzevir brothers. This title is still used in connection with the King James, and it is one you will see again in this article.

Based upon their studies (Westcott and Hort), they argued that the Byzantine text was not the closest to the original writings as the King James advocates claimed. It seemed to have combined readings from other text families, and some readings appeared to have been modified for greater clarity and understanding. Thus, they believed it was at least two steps removed from the original writings.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What they don't teach you at Sunday School.

The first published Greek New Testament appeared in the year 1516. It was edited by Erasmus, a Dutch scholar. [b]Erasmus had at his disposal no more than six Greek manuscripts (we have thousands at our disposal today). These manuscripts were part of what is called the Byzantine text family.

Althou ...[text shortened]... ved from the original writings.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/kjvdebat.html[/b]

The interesting thing about all the translations of the Bible however spurious the author's motivations, is that none of them state that a person needs to be a member of any religious group, organisation or church in order to obtain eternal life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear could no one bring themselves to face the truth.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How can one deduce if something is 'two steps removed from the original writings' when we don't know for certain what the original writings were?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you gather together all the manuscripts, papyri, codices that you can and you compare them and reach some kind of a consensus as to what is sound and what is not. It matters not that you have not the original, if ten out of twelve are in harmony then its an educated guess that this was what was originally written or as close to it as you can possibly get. In this way its possible to root out spurious texts and interpolations.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
The point is that you are saying that your organization is the consensus
and therein lies the problem.

Your out fit is not in accord with what you say is the consensus.

Your outfit is a cult which has got all the translations wrong
and has conspired with nazi Germany in order to continue to exist
during the 1930's and has predicted many thin ...[text shortened]... own to be wrong many times.
How much longer will you persist in this false apostate following?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It matters not that you have not the original, if ten out of twelve are in harmony then its an educated guess that this was what was originally written or as close to it as you can possibly get.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Quantity over quality?

If nine of the twelve are copies of an incorrect version where does that leave you?

With your logic the bible with the most copies is closest to the truth!

The New International version beats KJV according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible

At the end of the day ... who cares?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There are thousands of extant manuscripts, codices and paparyi, in fact, there is more than any other ancient text, we dont here you crying about the account of Alexander or the Greek tragedies, which may have very little substantiating documentation, do we. And no its not the bible with the most copies, the NIV is a translation, not an original text, as is the KJV. People that are interested in truth and accuracy care.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
http://voices.yahoo.com/new-world-translation-errors-jehovah-witness-5366895.html

Time and time again I have shown you links like this one
and you say it is all rubbish. You belong to an apostate
group who have corrupted the original sacred texts yet
you do not apologize or realize the mistakes and the
deliberate corruption your cult of a g ...[text shortened]... many times they have changed the word of God
and made prophecies which have proven to be false.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this thread is not about Jehovahs witnesses its about the King James version of the bible and its origins if you have not the education nor the manners to respect that then please project your prejudices and ignorance elsewhere, preferably far, far away from me.

There is thread about the origins of the New world translation why dont you go over there and hate?

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Why don't you deal with the challenges in the link which show
where your apostate religion went wrong?

Others can read the link and see where your apostate cult went
wrong in its translations.

Further research can show all the predictions your organizations made
that proved to be false. They got it wrong so many times.

By their fruits ye shall know them. The fruit of your organization is rotten.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do you have anything to say about the origins of the King James bible, no, let us know when you do.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
It has been around for longer than your apostate group of demons.