Origins of the King James Version of the Bible

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What about these verses Johnny, why are they more accurate?

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce the ...[text shortened]... ith the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

At the time the King James Version was translated the dictionary defined a unicorn as a one-horned rhinoceros. Uniconis is still part of its scientific name today.

The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), also called the greater one-horned rhinoceros and Indian one-horned rhinoceros, belongs to the Rhinocerotidae family.

http://a-z-animals.com/animals/indian-rhinoceros/

The Instructor

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes:
At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican L ...[text shortened]... , 121 Newgate Street, London), pp. 1-58.
Norton, pp. 185 and 186
Racovian Catechism, pp. 39-42

It is is very reasonable to believe that it should read as the majority text has it because it makes sense in context and it agrees with the rest of scripture. Look at it again:

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.

(1 John 5:6-9 NKJV)

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
At the time the King James Version was translated the dictionary defined a unicorn as a one-horned rhinoceros. Uniconis is still part of its scientific name today.

The Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), also called the greater one-horned rhinoceros and Indian one-horned rhinoceros, belongs to the Rhinocerotidae family.

http://a-z-animals.com/animals/indian-rhinoceros/

The Instructor

bwhahahah, at the time yet its still in the King James Version, no wonder you people are so mixed up, you are living in the past, unicorns, brilliant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
bwhahahah, at the time yet its still in the King James Version, no wonder you people are so mixed up, you are living in the past, unicorns, brilliant.

Well, those unicorns are still around and are coming back from the brink of extinction. just because the definition was changed by some fool does not mean the text in the Bible is wrong. The translators of the NKJV replaced it with a wild ox, but we all know a wild ox has more tha one horn.

Psalms 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

What value is there in the horns of a wild ox? However, the one-horned rhinoceros was almost hunted to extinction for its horn.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, those unicorns are still around and are coming back from the brink of extinction. just because the definition was changed by some fool does not mean the text in the Bible is wrong. The translators of the NKJV replaced it with a wild ox, but we all know a wild ox has more tha one horn.

Psalms 92:10
[b]But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of ...[text shortened]... ever, the one-horned rhinoceros was almost hunted to extinction for its horn.

The Instructor

look Hindus - a uniiiiiiiiiiicorn

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dont teach you this at Sunday school kidz!

In this connection, it is worth noting that the translators of the King James Version did not follow exclusively any single printed edition of the New Testament in Greek. The edition most closely followed by them was Beza's edition of 1598, but they departed from this edition for the reading in some other ...[text shortened]... sely the reading in the Latin Vulgate version.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

So what?

The Instructor

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
where have i said my organisation has formed a consensus, we did not compile the Westcott and Hort base text which forms the basis of many Bible translations.

If a translation is wrong i point out why it is wrong, all you do and all you can do is make silly and quite ludicrous assertions because you have practically no knowledge of scripture nor t ...[text shortened]... t then please project your prejudices and ignorance elsewhere, preferably far, far away from me.

The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). The last two editions of each of these sport an identical text, a new "received text," so to speak.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

The Instructor

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.

I understand how the process works. But the problem is that the earliest piece of NT papyri in existence is dated to 125, which incidentally is housed in the John Rylands library in Manchester and is a whopping 9 x 6cm big. There are only 9 pieces of papyri in existence which have been dated earlier than 250. That is essentially a blank void of 200 years after the event of which hardly anything exists. If wholesale alterations were made to the text in the early years no one would be none the wiser.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I understand how the process works. But the problem is that the earliest piece of NT papyri in existence is dated to 125, which incidentally is housed in the John Rylands library in Manchester and is a whopping 9 x 6cm big. There are only 9 pieces of papyri in existence which have been dated earlier than 250. That is essentially a blank void of 200 years ...[text shortened]... f wholesale alterations were made to the text in the early years no one would be none the wiser.

wow have you seen it? Next time i am in Manchester I may go along, are your museums free to enter as they are in Glasgow? Anyhow, its not a blank void, for there are numerous texts which are quite extensive, for example the Sahidic coptic text which is dated to about the third and fourth centuries and which are Coptic translations of much earlier Greek manuscripts. There is no other ancient text so attested to and so rigorously examined than the Bible, you can rest assured that that you have in your book shelf the inspired Word of God. Your argument is one of absence and relies upon what is not known rather than what is known.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation. The "standard" text or texts today are the Nestle or Nestle-Aland text (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Soci ...[text shortened]... eived text," so to speak.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

The Instructor[/b]

Which is probably why the New World translation is the most accurate of Bible translations available today, it being founded upon the most accurate Greek base text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow have you seen it? Next time i am in Manchester I may go along, are your museums free to enter as they are in Glasgow? Anyhow, its not a blank void, for there are numerous texts which are quite extensive, for example the Sahidic coptic text which is dated to about the third and fourth centuries and which are Coptic translations of much earlier G ...[text shortened]... d. Your argument is one of absence and relies upon what is not known rather than what is known.

I've not seen it, on the few occasions I have gone to look in the library it has been shut. It is free though.

It is a virtual blank slate, there are only 9 pieces of NT papyri in existence which have been dated before 250. There is a near 200 year gap where the history of texts is almost non existent. I'm not sure why you are referencing the Sahidic Coptic text for? It's not from the period I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've not seen it, on the few occasions I have gone to look in the library it has been shut. It is free though.

It is a virtual blank slate, there are only 9 pieces of NT papyri in existence which have been dated before 250. There is a near 200 year gap where the history of texts is almost non existent. I'm not sure why you are referencing the Sahidic Coptic text for? It's not from the period I'm talking about.

its a translation of some of the earliest known Greek manuscripts, dated to the period that you are referring to, 2nd century. We are only talking a generation after John penned Revelation, in terms of ancient texts and original autographs, that's close. If I went to that library I would be licking the glass case like a stellspalfie!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a translation of some of the earliest known Greek manuscripts, dated to the period that you are referring to, 2nd century. We are only talking a generation after John penned Revelation, in terms of ancient texts and original autographs, that's close. If I went to that library I would be licking the glass case like a stellspalfie!

The Sahadic Coptic bible is dated late 2nd century by most scholars, some think it's slightly later.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a translation of some of the earliest known Greek manuscripts, dated to the period that you are referring to, 2nd century. We are only talking a generation after John penned Revelation, in terms of ancient texts and original autographs, that's close. If I went to that library I would be licking the glass case like a stellspalfie!

How can they be sure of these dates. Did the copyist write on it the date he copied it?

The Instructor

bwhahahah, at the time yet its still in the King James Version, no wonder you people are so mixed up, you are living in the past, unicorns, brilliant.

What major tenet of my faith is effected by the presence of the word "unicorns" in the King James Bible ?

Does it insist that no other English version but the KJV should I use ?
Does it insist that I could not obtain for my study an ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASV, NKJV, Emphasized Bible, Amplified Bible, Young's Literal Concordant Version, or any number of other English translations ?

Does it effect the existence of God as an item of my faith ?

Does it effect the incarnation of God or His perfect life as a man or His redemptive death and resurrection ?

Does the presence of the word "unicorns" effect in any way my belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ?

Does the presence of the word "unicorns" ill-effect any aspect of the sanctification process, the second coming, the eternal redemption, the resurrection, the millennial kingdom or the eternal age of the new heaven and new earth ?

Exactly which major Christian tenet is done substantial damage by the presence the word "unicorns" in the 17th century King James English version of the Bible ?