The difference but the same!

Their text derived from Vaticanus,Alexandrinus,and Sinaiticus,(AKA the WBV waste basket version).

 

Good try, but not quite. First, it is not the WH text, so please present truthful facts, not twisted half-truths. Second, if you want to play an association game, you have a problem. See, Mormons use the KJV. Not a different translation from the same Greek text, as JW's do, but the same translation. Do you really want to go down that road?

Also, one of the major problems that I understand with the NWT is like in John 1:1. It does not read like the NASB or follow the Greek. The NWT needlessly disregards the appropriate translations at times and inserts slanted views into the text. So your whole premise is wrong. It is not the Greek text that is the problem. It is the translators.

And what of the places where the KJV reads like the Latin Vulgate? If you want to associate things, then the KJV is definitely associated with the Vulgate. In your attempt to put down other translations the methods you use can be used for the KJV just as much, if not more.

Neal

 

What of it? there are many instances where different manuscripts agree with one another,big deal.

I think not!The manuscripts that underly the Latin Vulgate,being Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, did not even have the book of Revelation in it's canon,it borrowed readings from Papyri that support/read with the KJB/TR readings.

You really should take you're own advice before posting.

 

So why do you give other translations such hard times? And this is not manuscript evidence. This is the KJV getting these readings from the Vulgate, not a common Greek text.

Could you point me to a reference to the underlying texts of the Vulgate? I believe it was a translation made in the 5th century. And if its underlying text did not have the book of Revelation, how did it get in the Vulgate? And you miss the point. The Vulgate (and KJV and NKJV) depart from the Greek in these parts. There is very little, if any, Greek support anywhere for these readings.

What methods was I using? Could you point out what you are talking about? I wasn't trying to undermine anything, just pointing out facts that are being conviently overlooked and showing the inadequacy of the argument at hand.

Neal

 

There is a heap of papyri that support the AV readings,the Vulgate got those readings from the same source,including the Old Latin(Greek Vulgate).

It was borrowed! Just like ALL MVs "borrow" the same ending for Revelation from the Byzantine manuscripts due to the FACT there underlying text does not contain the book of Revelation.

I think if you would look into it a little,all manuscript "families" depart from there underlying texts from time to time.

What you will find is that no manuscript falls completely into any one "family" of manuscripts. Even the Alexandrian manuscripts have Byzantine readings in them from time to time.

 

Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean & Byzantine types are ones that come to mind.Plus a world of Papyri.

 

Guilt by association is a fallacy which can be easily used to undermine the KJV by the same logic you're using, ASK and JYD. Therefore, it ought not be acceptable.

 

Please point me to the heap that reads like the KJV in Acts 8:37, I John 5:7-8, and Revelation 22:19, just to name a few, please.

Oh, I see. Like the last seven verses in Revelation in the KJV were borrowed directly from the Vulgate and not from any Greek manuscripts? I think I understand.

My friend, I have looked into it a lot. I am just wondering how a family departs from their underlying texts at times. I didn't know there was an underlying text to a manuscript families. I thought an underlying text referred to the text used to make a translation.

Okay. But you didn't answer my question. I don't doubt this. That is not my method. You said that I should take my own advice. My advice to Askjo was to think of the argument he puts forward and how it could be used against his position. How is what I posted in my original post used against me? I just pointed out that the KJV has readings from the Latin Vulgate (not the Greek), Mormons use the KJV, and modern versions do not use the WH text. My main point was to show Askjo that using his method of guilt by association would immediately condemn the KJV. But I am NOT condemning it. Just like I don't condemn the NASB for having the same underlying text as the NWT. I was showing him that his line of argument was faulty. So where could I have used my advice, as you told me to. Could you please point it out?

Neal

 

Some Papyri purchased by Chester Beatty includes p45(A.D. 225),p46(A.D.225),and p47.p47 contained the entire book of Revelation,that is NOT found in any Vatican manuscript.Also,Manuscript 61(15th century)in Dublin,and Codex Ravianus(88&629).

No,I think you don't understand.The Latin Vulgate's underlying manuscript did not have the Book of Revelation in it's canon;it came from Byzantine manuscripts.Therefore,the Latin Vulgate will agree with the Old Latin(aka,the Greek Vulgate).

So what?? Alot of whackos "use" the KJB,that does not change what it is.

Why wouldn't you? They do have the same reading in John 1:18(two gods),and denies that Christ was manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16;read 1John 4:3 for explaination.

Just like you making the KJB guilty just because the Mormons use it??

[ June 03, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

They don't? how so?

 

I thought you said a heap, not a couple.

No, you are the one who does not understand. I am not disputing that there are manuscripts for the book of Revelation. But the KJV does NOT read like them. It reads like the Latin Vulgate, not Greek manuscripts. It doesn't matter where the Vulgate got them from. It doesn't match up with the evidence we have in the Greek. So the KJV does not follow existing Greek manuscripts at the end of Revelation. Erasmus directly translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. That is my point. In 22:19 the KJV reads "Book of Life" when the Greek evidence we have points overwhelmingly to "Tree of Life." Where did the KJV get "Book of Life?" The Latin Vulgate.

Okay, I will say it slowly. I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE KJV. Please read my posts, not scan over them. I AM POINTING OUT THAT USING THE ASSOCIATION GAME, WHICH KJVOS LIKE TO DO, THE KJV WOULD NOT PASS THE TEST.

You just said it didn't matter that Mormons use the KJV. Then you use your double standard and try to associate the NASB with JWs. The NASB does not teach two Gods (study what the Trinity really means), does not deny the Christ was manifest in the flesh (what a weak argument, who else is the 1 Tim. passage talking about if not Christ), and your point with 1 John 4:3? Read the NASB and you will see that it confesses Christ. Why are you spreading lies?

I will ask one more time that you READ. With comprehension. I am not "making the KJB guilty." If you read what I wrote you would clearly see that. The only way the KJV is guilty is by using your logic of association. But I do not agree with that. So I don't condemn the KJV. But if you want to be consistent, you have to. I can't help it that you shoot yourself in the foot while you try to attack the NASB.

Neal

 

Look into it. See who compiled the text underlying the NASB, ESV, and NIV.

Neal

 

One question... The KJV says only begotten Son... God declares this is my beloved Son this day have I begotten thee... Yet the other versions say begotten God... Who is right here?... Are you refuting what God has declared?... I'll stay with my KJV and you all can have your other versions... And error is an error!... Brother Glen... Strict KJVO Primitive Baptist

 

What does John 1:1 say about Christ? It does not say that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the Son. John 1:18 as given in MV's agrees with the overall context of John's opening argument better than as given in the KJV. In verse 1, Christ is called God. In verse 18, Christ is called God. To rightly divide the Word of Truth and reconcile the clear monotheistic teachings with the clear teaching of 3 persons identified as God requires the trinity... whichever way John 1:18 reads.

 

Glen, you have got to be kidding me.

 

Disagree... Did the begotten God die?... No the Son of God died?... and that is the difference!... They are not the same... the KJV says it the way it is suppose to be all other versions are in error... To each his own... But don't get me to buy it... Brother Glen