It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
TextThe translators of the King James Bible (1611) made a number of errors, as you know, and the book was re-issued 4 times over the next several years with corrections, many of which were printers' errrors.
You bring up some very good points for consideration and while I will try to answer what I believe to be true I do not want to offend you.
The KJV bible is not my choice of study because I became acquainted with the Geneva Bible in my youth and have used it for well over seventy five years. But that is not to say that the KJV is not a work of reliable understanding.
It is my understanding that there were no revisions made to the KJV up to 1800 and then textual critics became a norm. There were textual corrections made and the Apocrypha removed but prior to 1800 there were no textual revisions made.
Out of the four families of texts that modern scholars use today three of them are actually of the same origin. Those three are the Egyptian or Alexanderian texts which include the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts, The Western Texts and the Caesaraen texts. These three families all originated under the Egyptian or better known as the Alexanderian family. All of these of the Alexanderian texts are but less than 1 percent of the total 5,000 texts which are extant today. This would place these Alexanderian texts at about 50 texts of the 5,000 texts available today. Most scholars of today group all of the 5,000 known texts into two families which are Alexanderian or Byzantine. The Second family of texts are known as the Byzantine family and they comprise about 99 percent of the 5,000 available texts today. That would amount to about 4,950 of these available texts.
You wrote - " For the so-called 'New' Testament Greek texts, they only had Codex 'Alexandrinus' (A) and 'Codex Bezae-biglot' (D), the socalled Western text. "
You error in this understanding. Firstly the 1604 translators did have access to the Catholic texts of the Alexanderain family and in fact the reformation was in part due to the corrupt rendition of the Vaticanus manuscript. Secondly you state that the Western family manuscripts are not in the same Alexanderian family manuscripts and they are indeed. The KJ scholars did compare the Alexanderian family manuscripts with those others which we number at 4,950 of the 5,000 or rightfully called the Received texts of the Byzantine family.
Theordore Beza was a protestant Reformer who succeeded Calvin from Geneva. The Latin – Greek work was taken from Lyons in 1562 and given to the crown in 1581. The KJ scholars did examine and translate the mss but found it wanting in authenticity. It is categorized in the Western family which is of the Alexanderian family of manuscripts or the 1 percent. Therefore it is not of the received texts. The KJ scholars did only accept the Majority texts because of the numerous errors in the Alexanderian Family manuscripts.
Now as for the Old Testament is concerned it was and is as much a controversy as any other literature.. The eastern churches used the Septuagint while the western world used the Massoretic text but since 1968 the new translation uses the Hebrew texts. The original language roots from Aramaic and Hebrew both. The dead sea scrolls coincide with the Massoretic text almost word for word which places the accuracy at over a thousand additional years. Naturally we do not any of the original mss.
I have noted that you criticize the 1604 scholars as using a mangled work in their choosing the literature for the OT but when you consider that this mangled work from the Massoretic text is almost word for word as the dead sea work then you should consider the accuracy of their choosing the path that they did. Actually it is a remarkable and accurate choice that they decided.
The Samaritan Pentateuch was a work comprised by Ahab and the idolaters’ of Samaria. This work is not even considered by Christianity to be of honest report. but it was reviewed by the 1604 scholars as well as the other avenues of study and found to be disingenuousness to say the least.
When I examine the work of Westcott and Hort, who are the fathers of textual criticism, then it is clear to me that none of their work which was founded upon Alexanderian Sinaiticus could even be considered reputable by any scholastic standard. Not one of their board could be identified as proficient in any of the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew languages. Yet they produced the modern bibles of today including the Jehovah Witness (NWT bible)-- That my friend is clear as mud.
. . . good idea for you (so you can begin to deal with FACTS) would be to get a copy of a book hapilly in English called ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible’ (edited by Martin Abegg etal.)
reply to post by Sigismundus
TextFirst of all, from what you wrote back to me, it is clear that you cannot read Aramaic or paleoHebrew texts for yourself - nor have you taken the time to examine any of the thousands of Dead Sea Scroll Caves 1-11 fragments –
Originally posted by redneck13
reply to post by LightningStrikesHere
His word is the book, the subject of your thread
It can only reveal what it containsedit on 15-6-2012 by redneck13 because: ,
Originally posted by cris7050
Through my own research the order of the Gospels: (1) John ,(2) Matthew ,(3) Mark ,(4) Luke.