Why the King James Bible?

[placebofactor]

The following is not my opinion, but historical facts.
There are over 5,800 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, and thousands more in Latin, Syriac, and other languages. Roughly 97% of these Greek manuscripts follow the Byzantine tradition, which is the textual basis for the Textus Receptus and, by extension, the King James Bible. So, the Textus Receptus reflects the broader Byzantine tradition.

The A., Codex Alexandrian text-type is used in almost every modern Bible translation. These are based on a much smaller number, 3% of all known manuscripts, manuscripts like the B. the Codex Vaticanus. This 3% differs from the Byzantine tradition in thousands of places.

Why do they differ? Because when found, over 10,000 changes, additions, erasures, etc. had been made by unknown hands. Westcott and Hort made some 5000 more changes.

Now, the "Majority Text" is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.

The "Received Text" is not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, between the 1500s and early 1600s. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied and are mostly derived from Erasmus, 1516 A.D.

The Textus Receptus has been shaped by a long line of scholars, editors, and translators since its first publication in 1516. While there’s no precise headcount, we can sketch a rough picture of its scholarly legacy:
Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536): The Dutch scholar who compiled the first printed Greek New Testament, using about 8 Greek manuscripts available in Basel.

Robert Stephanus (1503–1559): A French printer who produced several influential editions, including the first to include verse numbers.

Theodore Beza (1519–1605): Successor to Calvin in Geneva, he published multiple editions and influenced the King James Version.

The Elzevir Brothers (17th century): Their 1633 edition coined the term Textus Receptus— “the text now received by all.”

William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and translators of the King James Version used the Textus Receptus as the basis for their vernacular translations. How Many in Total? The exact number cannot be pinned down, but, hundreds of scholars, plus editors, translators, and commentators, have worked with or built upon the Textus Receptus over the past 500 years. This includes:
1. Renaissance humanists and Reformation-era theologians.
2. 17th-century translators across Europe.
3. 19th- and 20th-century defenders and revisers of the text;
4. Modern editors of translations like the New King James Version and Modern English Version, which still draw from the Textus Receptus.
So, the scholarly footprint is vast, spanning centuries, continents, and theological traditions


In the Pentateuch of the A. text, entire sentences were erased and rewritten. Also in the A. Codex Alexandrinus, Revelation 1:1 is preserved in ancient Greek and reads quite similarly to other early manuscripts, though with some minor textual variations. So, by the time it reached England in 1627, the Codex Alexandrinus was already a heavily worked-over document, reflecting centuries of scribal attention and evolving textual traditions

Here's a reconstruction of Revelation 1:1 as it appears in A. Codex Alexandrinus, with gaps filled in based on scholarly consensus:
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός,
δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει·
καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ
τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John." A far cry from the N.W.T. corrupt interpretation.

And so, I ask, why in the world would any serious Christian who is searching for the truth use a 3% interpretation of the scriptures versus 97%? And the 3%, for the most part, has had 1000s of changes made by unknown hands? If you are serious about the word of God, use a Bible that uses the majority of all known manuscripts, not the 3% that have had thousands of changes made to them over the past 200 years.

And why would anyone use one Bible, one in particular that disagrees with 99.999% of all Bibles? I am speaking of the New World Translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

[Difflugia]

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John." A far cry from the N.W.T. corrupt interpretation.

What exactly are you challenging about the NWT rendition of this verse and what Greek? Do you think it started with different Greek or do you just think that the translation is wrong?

The NWT reads:

A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John

It's a little awkward, the final clause in particular, but it looks to me like it's a reasonable translation of the Greek. What exactly do you think is corrupted?

Beyond that, your discussions started out as a KJV-only thing. You justified it with a discussion about Greek source texts, but the verse you picked doesn't differ in the Greek. What is it that you're asking and arguing?

[placebofactor]

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John." A far cry from the N.W.T. corrupt interpretation.

What exactly are you challenging about the NWT rendition of this verse and what Greek? Do you think it started with different Greek or do you just think that the translation is wrong?

The NWT reads:

A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John

It's a little awkward, the final clause in particular, but it looks to me like it's a reasonable translation of the Greek. What exactly do you think is corrupted?

Beyond that, your discussions started out as a KJV-only thing. You justified it with a discussion about Greek source texts, but the verse you picked doesn't differ in the Greek. What is it that you're asking and arguing?

Thanks for your question: I'm just an average guy with an average education, like many others who read the Bible. With that said, let's compare the two very different verses.

K.J.B. "THE Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants ---."

N.W.T. "A revelation BY by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves ----."

The definite article "The" tells us this will be the only Revelation the Father will give concerning his Son, there will be no others.

By changing "The" to an indefinite article "a", the Watchtower has used this indefinite article to claim they have received more revelations from the Father through their organization. Revelations known only to them. In this, they have changed many of their laws, rules of conduct, and other changes to the Scripture, changes like John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:8, and others. These are not minor changes; they are changes that affect basic doctrines concerning Jesus Christ. Also, by changing the article, it explains the four copyrights of their Bible over the past 64 years. They claim they have been given new revelations and point to Revelation 1:1 as evidence to support this. Like I posted concerning Revelation 1:1, less than 1% of the known manuscripts agree with their interpretation. So are we to follow the 99% or the 1%. My vote goes to the 99%.

[Difflugia]

The definite article "The" tells us this will be the only Revelation the Father will give concerning his Son, there will be no others.

By changing "The" to an indefinite article "a", the Watchtower has used this indefinite article to claim they have received more revelations from the Father through their organization. Revelations known only to them.

There's no definite article in that verse in Greek. Whether you think one belongs there or not, the NWT translation isn't wrong.

In this, they have changed many of their laws, rules of conduct, and other changes to the Scripture, changes like John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:8, and others. These are not minor changes; they are changes that affect basic doctrines concerning Jesus Christ.

I do agree that there are theology-driven translation decisions in the NWT, some of which can't plausibly be justified. Revelation 1:1 isn't one of them, though.

Also, by changing the article, it explains the four copyrights of their Bible over the past 64 years. They claim they have been given new revelations and point to Revelation 1:1 as evidence to support this. Like I posted concerning Revelation 1:1, less than 1% of the known manuscripts agree with their interpretation. So are we to follow the 99% or the 1%. My vote goes to the 99%.

If you mean Greek manuscripts, the apparatus for the NA28 doesn't list any variants with a definite article. If you mean English translations, the NWT didn't remove the article. Instead, the other translations added it.

An implied definite article isn't necessarily wrong, either, though. Greek titles often omit a leading definite article and Revelation 1:1 reads an awful lot like a title. Mark 1:1 is another likely example. If we treat Mark 1:1 other than a title, we get, "A beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that's why most translations make it definite. My suspicion is that the NWT omits the article in Revelation 1:1 specifically because of how they want to translate John 1:1, but that still doesn't make it wrong. They don't in Mark 1:1, though. I bet that's too silly for even that level of pedantry.

The NWT is certainly dodgy, but when the NWT differs from traditional translations, and the KJV in particular, the NWT isn't necessarily wrong, even when the difference affects doctrine.

[placebofactor]

The definite article "The" tells us this will be the only Revelation the Father will give concerning his Son, there will be no others.

By changing "The" to an indefinite article "a", the Watchtower has used this indefinite article to claim they have received more revelations from the Father through their organization. Revelations known only to them.

There's no definite article in that verse in Greek. Whether you think one belongs there or not, the NWT translation isn't wrong.

The articles are used in every Bible and on every page. They are put there to clarify. If there were a bushel of apples and I asked you, "Please give me an apple from the bushel," any apple you gave me would do. But if I said, Give me the apple from the bushel that has a stem and a leaf hanging from the stem, I am asking for one particular apple from the bushel, not any apple. The authority of the definite article is obvious and apparent.

In this, they have changed many of their laws, rules of conduct, and other changes to the Scripture, changes like John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:8, and others. These are not minor changes; they are changes that affect basic doctrines concerning Jesus Christ.

I do agree that there are theology-driven translation decisions in the NWT, some of which can't plausibly be justified. Revelation 1:1 isn't one of them, though.

Also, by changing the article, it explains the four copyrights of their Bible over the past 64 years. They claim they have been given new revelations and point to Revelation 1:1 as evidence to support this. Like I posted concerning Revelation 1:1, less than 1% of the known manuscripts agree with their interpretation. So are we to follow the 99% or the 1%. My vote goes to the 99%.

If you mean Greek manuscripts, the apparatus for the NA28 doesn't list any variants with a definite article. If you mean English translations, the NWT didn't remove the article. Instead, the other translations added it.

Look, all of us laypeople have to trust the professionals. When you get on a plane, you have to trust the pilots, whether you know them or not. When it comes to Bibles, all we can do is investigate the men and women who did the translating, their qualifications, and education. This thing I have done. Every man who worked on the King James, all 60 of them, was well qualified. There are no secrets; it's in the history books and on the Internet. The Watchtower will not reveal the names or qualifications of those who translated the N.W.T. I do not play games with my eternity, that's my choice, as it is yours. I refuse to trust their mystery men.

An implied definite article isn't necessarily wrong, either, though. Greek titles often omit a leading definite article and Revelation 1:1 reads an awful lot like a title. Mark 1:1 is another likely example. If we treat Mark 1:1 other than a title, we get, "A beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that's why most translations make it definite. My suspicion is that the NWT omits the article in Revelation 1:1 specifically because of how they want to translate John 1:1, but that still doesn't make it wrong. They don't in Mark 1:1, though. I bet that's too silly for even that level of pedantry.

In my 40 years of friendship with the Witnesses, I came to realize they have an agenda, that is to degrade the Son of God, and deny the person of the Holy Spirit, making Jesus a "creature" and Holy Spirit an "It." Every verse in the Bible that supports Jesus' Divinity, the Watchtower has changed. Example: 1984 addition N.W.T. "Jesus created all (other) things" 2013 edition, Jesus created all other things. They added other but put brackets around it, 1984, In 2013 they made other a part of the text. There is not one manuscript of the 5800 that I am aware of that supports that change.

The NWT is certainly dodgy, but when the NWT differs from traditional translations, and the KJV in particular, the NWT isn't necessarily wrong, even when the difference affects doctrine.

When it comes to the Scripture, it's either right or wrong. Jesus is God, or he isn't; he's not almost anything else. There is a third person of the Godhead, we call him the Holy Spirit; he exists, or he doesn't exist, there is no middle ground for this understanding. These are not minor disagreements; they are doctrinal heresies. That's my take, and trust me, I have dedicated the last 40 years of my life looking into these things.

I drove and trained Harness Horses for 28 years. I was a trainer, not almost a trainer; I was also a driver, not almost a driver. The characters that were almost drivers and almost trainers had short careers. Sort of like the 1st, 2nd, and third editions of the N.W.T., each had short careers. I can't wait to see what the Watchtowers' 5th generation Bible looks like. And when it comes out, they will, like all the other times, claim, "We had new light" then point to Revelation 1:1.

The N.I.V. and others that use the corrupted A. and B. texts are no better than the N.W.T. Each edition they publish has had a short career. The N.I.V. has had three copyright changes since 1973, maybe four. It appears they can't make up their mind what the manuscripts say.

Thanks for your comments, and I hope, like many other so-called Christians, you're not a fence-sitter. You write like a reasonable person who uses common sense and trusts the LORD to keep his word intact. I hope you are.

[historia]

And so, I ask, why in the world would any serious Christian who is searching for the truth use a 3% interpretation of the scriptures versus 97%?

There are hundreds of verses where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text.

According to your logic here, "serious Christians" should reject how these verses are rendered in the King James Version. Do you?

[placebofactor]

And so, I ask, why in the world would any serious Christian who is searching for the truth use a 3% interpretation of the scriptures versus 97%?

There are hundreds of verses where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text.

Of course, there would be slight differences. Why? because of the number of manuscripts, the number of languages they were written in, and the number of centuries they cover. Keep in mind, words, idioms, expressions, and even the meaning of words change over centuries. What changes them? Time, war, the occupation of foreign troops, migration of people, etc. Daniel's captivity proves my point. The Hebrew language in the years of Israel's captivities changed. Daniel used certain idioms and phrases from the Chaldean language in his book, combining Hebrew with the Babylonian and Persian languages. We find this in Damiel, Jeremiah, and other prophets of that period. So, when the translators get these many manuscripts written at different times and in different languages, they compare and make their decisions.

According to your logic here, "serious Christians" should reject how these verses are rendered in the King James Version. Do you?

Serious Christians should not reject how the verses are rendered in the King James Bible. Why? because over the past 500 years, beginning with Wycliffe, the Bishop's Bible, Tindal's Bible, Erasmus, and King James, their work has been examined by thousands of theologians, men and women who know a great deal more than you and I. We can access information concerning their qualifications and education. And because I am not a lazy person, I took the time to examine their credentials. My bottom line: the more I learn about the history of these modern-day Bibles, and the men and women who worked on the translations, the closer I get to the King James Bible.

Last word: We are all free to study any Bible of our choice, with any group we feel comfortable with, and trust. But as individuals, we must keep in mind there is only ONE TRUTH! Jesus is God, or he is not. The Holy Spirit is a "HE", not an "IT." The choices we make will affect our standing with the LORD on judgment day, and the rewards and punishments that are meted out. So, we should all use extreme caution and examine ALL the facts and not be persuaded by others who may or may not have a personal agenda. As for myself, after much examination, I have made a decision and am very comfortable with it.

[Difflugia]

Serious Christians should not reject how the verses are rendered in the King James Bible. Why? because over the past 500 years, beginning with Wycliffe, the Bishop's Bible, Tindal's Bible, Erasmus, and King James, their work has been examined by thousands of theologians, men and women who know a great deal more than you and I.

I agree with all of this exactly as you've written it, but there's still quite a broad expanse between rejection and dogmatic acceptance. I think serious Christians should avoid both. Continuing with your example of Revelation 1:1, I think it's instructive to look at Young's Literal Translation:

A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify [it], having sent through his messenger to his servant John

Young's primary goal was to render in English, exactly what the words in Greek mean. If that differs from the King James, that certainly doesn't mean that the translators involved in the King James were wrong, but it certainly leaves room to question their judgement.

We are all free to study any Bible of our choice, with any group we feel comfortable with, and trust. But as individuals, we must keep in mind there is only ONE TRUTH!

Even if you think that, it seems dangerous to close off any new insight that potentially conflict with the old. If you hit that point, you're no longer allowing the Bible to tell you what it says, but you're telling the Bible what you think it must say.

[historia]

And so, I ask, why in the world would any serious Christian who is searching for the truth use a 3% interpretation of the scriptures versus 97%?

There are hundreds of verses where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text.

. . .

So, when the translators get these many manuscripts written at different times and in different languages, they compare and make their decisions.

It seems to me you've answered your own question, then.

If you agree with the KJV in the hundreds of cases where it goes against what 97% or more of the manuscripts say, then you yourself recognize that there is more to determining what the original text said than simply counting up the total number of (largely late-Medieval) manuscripts and going with what the majority say.

That is why "any serious Christian who is searching for the truth," including yourself, goes with the 3% of manuscripts over and against the 97%.

over the past 500 years, beginning with Wycliffe, the Bishop's Bible, Tindal's Bible, Erasmus, and King James, their work has been examined by thousands of theologians, men and women who know a great deal more than you and I.

Sure, that's how we ended up with the modern critical text. Thousands of theologians realized that the Textus Receptus included a number of accumulated corruptions, and so sought to identify and correct those.

[placebofactor]

And so, I ask, why in the world would any serious Christian who is searching for the truth use a 3% interpretation of the scriptures versus 97%?

There are hundreds of verses where the Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text.

. . .

So, when the translators get these many manuscripts written at different times and in different languages, they compare and make their decisions.

It seems to me you've answered your own question, then.

If you agree with the KJV in the hundreds of cases where it goes against what 97% or more of the manuscripts say, then you yourself recognize that there is more to determining what the original text said than simply counting up the total number of (largely late-Medieval) manuscripts and going with what the majority say.

That is why "any serious Christian who is searching for the truth," including yourself, goes with the 3% of manuscripts over and against the 97%.

over the past 500 years, beginning with Wycliffe, the Bishop's Bible, Tindal's Bible, Erasmus, and King James, their work has been examined by thousands of theologians, men and women who know a great deal more than you and I.

Sure, that's how we ended up with the modern critical text. Thousands of theologians realized that the Textus Receptus included a number of accumulated corruptions, and so sought to identify and correct those.

The only thing that appears to be corrupt is your comments concerning what I wrote. Everything I posted, you turned around. If you are having trouble reading, I'll bring my message down a few grades so you can understand.

Or you have confused what I have written. The King James agrees with the 97% of the 5800 known manuscripts and modern-day Bibles use the 3%, except for the N.W.T., which uses the less then the 1% of known manuscripts. You need to be more careful reading the posts of those who are debating with you. Also, I hope you're not trying to be cute by posting things I did not say.