Greek Sources for AV1611

Neither.The only confused person is YOU.

*Sigh* This has been proven over and over;it is realy VERY elementery;if you would bother reading God's word(KJB)instead of devoting so much time trying to tear it down,you would have seen-in 3rd grade English-that BOTH of them went into the city.You probaly already know this..

 

Dear A-A,

Well thats a clever answer that "they" both went into the city, but it's wrong according to the Word of God. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't.

far from tearing down God's Word I wish to make sure it agrees with the original language of Ruth which says "she" SINGULAR went into the city.

"They went into the city" is not God's Word neither is "he went into the city".

HankD

 

*Sigh* This has been proven over and over;it is realy VERY elementery;if you would bother reading God's word(KJB)instead of devoting so much time trying to tear it down,you would have seen-in 3rd grade English-that BOTH of them went into the city.You probaly already know this.. </font>[/QUOTE]Who appointed you to change teh word of God?? You have great audacity to take God's word and change it. You have condemned other for supposedly doing that and now you have done it yourself. What an absolute hypocrite.

If you get your KJV, you will see that God didn't say "both." He said "he" ... or wait ... No, he said "she." The point is that two different "God's words" say different things. Neither of them say "both." You are shown once again to be a fraud, a hypocrite, and a false teacher.

 

Neither, most agree that it was a simple printing mistake that was later found and corrected. Found this site via a simple Google search of "Ruth 3:15" and "error".

 

This is for the KJVO to answer and I am not sure if you wear that label Michael but anyway...

"most" agree? Who are "most" and how do they know which is correct if the KJV English is the "re-inspired" word of God since they cannot appeal to the Hebrew?

Also what is the difference between a printing "mistake" and a scribal "mistake"?

How do we square the fact that a mistake has been made in the KJV Re-inspired 1611 English which came from the Holy Spirit (howbeit after it went to the printer)?

So are you saying then that only the original autograph (archetype) of the 1611KJV before it went to the printer is the inspired text?

DeJaVu anyone or where have we heard that before?

BTW that archetype was lost within only a few years after the "original" 1611 publication.

HankD

 

Neither, most agree that it was a simple printing mistake that was later found and corrected. Found this site via a simple Google search of "Ruth 3:15" and "error". </font>[/QUOTE]How do you, or the writer of the article, or anyone else, *know* that it's a "printer's error?" And how do you *know* which of the two is correct? These are the questions those in the KJV-Only camp seem to be unable or unwilling to answer.

 

So there were error's in the King James Version, God's perfect word?? How can there be errors in a perfect word??

 

I see.Well Larry,if you would read the word(KJB)of God you would have seen that they indeed did both go into the city;"she" goes into the city because that is where her mother-in-law was(read carefuly and very slowly Ruth 2:18).And "he" goes into the city also because that is where the gate was(Ruth 4:1,read it S-L-O-W-L-Y);as any idiot could see,they did in fact go into the city;you have once again been shown that you are ignorant of the word of God,and just downright hateful,and dishonest.

 

I see.Well Larry,if you would read the word(KJB)of God you would have seen that they indeed did both go into the city...</font>[/QUOTE]You are missing the point. Either it reads "he" or it reads "she;" it can't read both. If it *can* read both, then you are effectively saying that it's all right for people to change the words God originally gave us. Do you really believe that?

 

I have read the word of God in teh KJV and in many other translations. I have never seen anything called a KJB. I don't know what that is. The closest I can find is a KJV. And I have read it slowly and it didn't change. Not one of them says "both." You are taking it on yourself to change the word of God. The text does not say "both." The fact that both of them went into the city is not under question. Somehow you missed that small point. The quesiton is not: Did both of them go into the city? The question is: What did God inspire? He did not inspire "both."

I have shown the truth. You have denied it. Then you called me ignorant, in spite of the face that I have posted nothing but truth. You call me downright hateful and dishonest because I love God's word and I correct false teaching. It is you with the problem. You have despised God's word. You have twisted his doctrine. You have attacked his word. You have changed it. I refuse to do any of those.

 

Whew!

I hope we can take a sanity check.

A-A, the reality is that the mss of the original language texts offer us the best guide as to the translation of Ruth 3:15 and many others passages in the KJV where the weaknesses and human failings of the translators/printers/publishes, etc is evident and undeniable.

Over the years those who had watch over the KJV did an admirable job attempting to bring the text to the best state possible. No one will deny that God has used the KJV in spite of those human weaknesses and failings discovered after 1611.

No one here hates the KJV. I for one use it as my primary Bible because everyone will hear it and it is based upon the TR.

But please don't forget that as "regal" as we might believe this Bible to be, when God first gave His Word it was "koine" in the current language of the common man.

Somewhere in the passage of time since 1611 that has changed for the English speaking world. The nKJV (IMO) is a valiant effort to bring the KJV to today's vernacular. However many are not exactly pleased with this version. As for me, I endorse it because it is rooted in the Traditional Text.

The other MV's are also the Word of God. This BTW is in the spirit and heart of the KJV translators who acknowledged even the "meanest" translation (not that I believe this to be true of the NIV, NAV, ASV, etc) is the Word of God (except perhaps for the NWT, for obvious reasons).

I personally believe that the Preservation of the Word of God can include a virtual error free text.
The discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of the papryri of the 1950's indicates that there are treasure troves of mss out there.

You believe we already have it, others just as sincere and spiritual believe there is room for improvement. I for one, though disagreeing that it is constituted in Aleph/B, stand with them as my brethren in that effort.

HankD

 

Since no one has the originals, it can't be 100% proven either way. Perhaps I should have used "some" instead of "most". Take a survey and prove me wrong, OK?

These guys also seem to think it was a misprint.
Wait, may "guys" isn't the right word either ...

 

David Cloud (yes I know some of you dislike him) made a comment during one of his sermons that the word of God is described as a sword (Heb. 4:12, Rev. 2:12, 19:15). I agree with him on this point; the KJV is a sharp sword, MV's are dull swords, but they are still swords. They still contain God's words and people are able to come to Christ and learn of Him thru their usage.

In any battle, I want the best weapon I can have, thus I want and use the KJV. Does that make me a KJVO in your eyes?

 

Since no one has the originals, it can't be 100% proven either way. </font>[/QUOTE]Even if we don't have the actual Hebrew original, if 100% of the Hebrew copies read "she," then we can know for certain that "she" is correct and that "he" is a misprint in some editions of the KJV. However, once we've done this, the original language text has become the "final authority" to which the text of the KJV must submit -- which is as it should be.

 

On what grounds do you say the KJV is a sharp sword and the MVs are dull swords? Oh, your opinion. Well, it is noted.

 

The following is taken from The Textual Position of Dean Burgon by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, presented at the Dean Burgon Society Annual Meeting, July 1998.

Dr. Cassidy writes:
It has often been charged by the proponents of the Critical Text position that Erasmus did not have access to the vast number of manuscripts available today, and thus confined his researches to a mere four or five Greek minuscules.

This position, is, of course, contravened by historical fact. Erasmus was a man engaged continually in dissertation with other scholars and a man of wide-ranging personal correspondence, who traveled, visiting libraries and centers of learning and did all that was necessary to discover everything possible about the Bible which he loved.

"He [Erasmus] was ever at work, visiting libraries, searching in every nook and corner for the profitable. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing and publishing. ... He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers." (David Otis Fuller, Is the KJV Nearest to the Original Autographs?)

"By 1495, he [Erasmus] was studying in Paris. In 1499 he went to England where he made the helpful friendship of John Cabot, later dean of St. Paul's, who quickened his interest in biblical studies. He then went back to France and the Netherlands. In 1505 he again visited England and then passed three years in Italy.

In 1509 he returned to England for the third time and taught at Cambridge University until 1514. In 1515 he went to Basel, where he published his New Testament in 1516, then back to the Netherlands for a sojourn at the University of Louvain. Then he returned to Basel in 1521 and remained there until 1529, in which year he removed to the imperial town of Freiburg-im-Breisgau.

Finally, in 1535, he again returned to Basel and died there the following year in the midst of his Protestant friends, without relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church.

"One might think that all this moving around would have interfered with Erasmus' activity as a scholar and writer, but quite the reverse is true. By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual currents of his time and stimulated to almost superhuman efforts. He became the most famous scholar and author of his day and one of the most prolific writers of all time, his collected works filling ten large volumes in the Leclerc edition of 1705.

As an editor also his productivity was tremendous. Ten columns of the catalog of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare enumeration of the works translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus, and their subsequent reprints." (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 195-197, referring to T.A. Dorey, Erasmus, London: Kegan Paul, 1970; Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom; W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Translation, Cambridge: University Press, 1955, pp. 92-166; Preserved Smith, Erasmus, New York: Harper, 1923).

According to Dr. Edward F. Hills, the evidence points to the fact that Erasmus used other manuscripts beside five: "When Erasmus came to Basel in July 1515, to begin his work, he found five Greek New Testament manuscripts ready for his use. ... Did Erasmus use other manuscripts beside these five in preparing his Textus Receptus? The indications are that he did. According to W. Schwarz (1955), Erasmus made his own Latin translation of the New Testament at Oxford during the years 1505-6.

His friend John Colet who had become Dean of St. Paul's, lent him two Latin manuscripts for this undertaking, but nothing is known about the Greek manuscripts which he used. He must have used some Greek manuscripts or other, however, and taken notes on them. Presumably therefore he brought these notes with him to Basel along with his translation and his comments on the New Testament text.

It is well known also that Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were readily available." (Hills, p. 198.)

"Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. 'If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.' He had collated many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... He had investigated the texts according to the principles of sacred criticism.

When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Cecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb." (J.H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157.)

So, it would seem that Erasmus, contrary to the position held by the proponents of the Critical Text, was a well traveled man, who had seen, studied, and ultimately rejected the very manuscripts which the Critical Text proponents consider "the best." He did so on the basis of the first hand, eye witness evidence of one who actually saw and read the manuscripts in questions, and recognized their inferiority.

 

I think this is the primary method of KJVOs and their kin: Come to your conclusion, then present the facts in such a way to appear to support it.

When Erasmus went to Basil, he had apparently not intended to include a Greek text in his work there. As a result, when he was convinced to include it, he had to use the manuscripts that were available locally. The following list is apparently from the pen of Erasmus himself:

1. Codex 1eap (the NT except for Revelation, from the 12th century).
2. Codex 1r (Revelation except the last six verses, from the 12th century).
3. Codex 2c (Gospels from the 12th century).
4. Codex 2ap (Acts and Epistles, 12 century or later).
5. Codex 4ap (Acts and Epistles, 15th Century)
6. Codex 7p (Pauline Epistles, 11 century).
7. Codex 817 (Gospels 15th Century).

Now if Erasmus himself says this is what he used, why should we disagree with him to prove our point? Why should we assume that he lied, that he really used all kinds of manuscripts but decided to tell us he just used a few. That makes no sense. As someone used to say, Anyone with an IQ bigger than their hat should be able to see through this nonsense.

It is interesting that there were some who claimed that the Latin Vulgate had been sanctified by 1100 years of usage and the tradition and piety of it underscored its sufficiency. They believed that a Greek text was not only unnecessary but would dissolve the authority of the Catholic church. How ironic that the arguments used against the TR are the same arguments used against modern versions. Had Erasmus listened to the arguments used by the KJVOs today, he would never had published his Greek NT, we would never have had a TR, and thus never have had a KJV as we know it.

The truth is that the KJVO have been used since the time of Jerome in the 400s and continue to this day. The arguments stay the same. The only thing that changes is the version they are applied to. People who don't know history, repeat it.

An article worth reading on Erasmus and the TR can be found here: Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

Please read it before continuing to participate in this conversation. It will expose you to the arguments and ideas that are vital to have standing in this conversation.