[Brother Tim]

Before we take time to deal with these, please identify the "someone" and the "another forum" for reference. Thanks.

[Cody1611]

Here is the thread.

http://www.studylightforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=1959

And the guy's user name is Scott1, which they're all against me on there.

[Brother Tim]

The first comment is very general. Much of the debate is what the KJB says versus what the Septuagint says. Giving the Septuagint any validity is like trusting the salesman at "Honest Abe's Used Cars and Satellite Dishes". It has more patches in it than the IRS code.

That said, all of these have answers, but as usual, the only ones that will accept the answers are those who already trust the validity of the KJB. The doubters will doubt still. If all of the alleged 70(72) scholars who supposedly wrote the "original", and no doubt flawless, copy of this esteemed relic were to rise from the dead and deny its very existence, the doubters would still quote from it as proof that the KJB is in error!

[Brother Tim]

As I review the list more closely, and scan a couple of the verses, an important fact becomes plain, even one of those "duh" types where it is too obvious.

Scott is pointing out supposed errors in the KJB and showing corrections in the Sept.. What is being left out is that the accusation is being made against the wrong text. The argument is actually against the Hebrew manuscript and the so-called Greek translation of those same manuscripts. The KJB really has nothing to do with the differences in that it is an accurate translation of the Hebrew, not the Sept. Now one might ask why there are apparent variations in the text itself, and those concerns can be addressed, but Scott's accusation is misdirected at best and deceitful at worst.

For evidence that it is Hebrew vs Sept., just note how many other versions, past and present, read the same as the KJB.

[Brother Tim]

To illustrate my point of misdirection (here I am being benevolent with Scott's intention), the following was found by a quick scan:

In argument #1, #2, #5, #7, #8, and #9, the NIV has the same information as the KJB.

In argument #3, #4, and #6, the NIV uses the Sept reading as its primary source, but footnotes the fact that the HEBREW is different (7 years, 42 years, and 700 horsemen respectively). Therefore, this is NOT a KJB error.

If Scott still has a problem with the alleged errors, tell him to take it up with the Mesorites.

[Cody1611]

What are all the texts the King James translators used? I know they used the TR and the Masoretic Text, but did they use other texts, such as Tyndale's work?

Also, in the KJV preface they do not claim the King James Bible to be perfect. People against the KJB bring this up to say the King James Bible is not perfect. I believe that in the preface there is a humbleness that God loves, rather than the new versions prefaces. There is books in the Bible that do not claim to be inspired by God, am I right? Just because the writer of the book does not claim inspiration by God does that mean it isn't inspired by God?

Sorry for all the questions, but I need my sword sharpened.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by Cody1611

What are all the texts the King James translators used? I know they used the TR and the Masoretic Text, but did they use other texts, such as Tyndale's work?

Bro. Cody, in answer to your question above I am copying and pasting a segment of an article I have written (yet to be published or posted on my website):

The KJV translators did not use just one edition of the TR for their work of translating the KJV. But they collated Erasmus, Stephanus, and 3 editions of Beza’s, but mainly used Beza’s 5th edition. They relied heavily upon the Bishop’s Bible as there main guide for English but according to Dr. Ira Price “whenever Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s White church’s (the Great Bible, here named after one of its printers) or the Geneva translation, agreed better with the original text than the Bishops’ Bible, it was to be used.” In addition, they used the Complutension and Antwerp Polyglots, the Latin Vulgate, and they also had the Italian Diodati, the French Olivetan, and Luther’s German Bible available for their work of comparison. They even had translations in Spanish at their disposal. The following quote is from The Translators to the Readers as put out by the KJV translators:

“Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done and to bring back to the anvil that which we hand hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

The translators did not specify exactly which Spanish version or versions they used for their work. They may have used the New Testaments of Enzinas or Pineda, and the Ferrara Old Testament, which were all produced in the mid 1500s. But it is probably safer to assume that they used the Valera of 1602, which was produced only 2 years before the KJV translators started their work, making it the most contemporary to them.

My point in all of this is that the text that underlies the KJV is really not a singular text at all, but rather a culmination of many texts within the Traditional text family that represented the overwhelming majority of manuscript evidence. They used that Traditional type of text that orthodox Christianity has always believed better represented the originals than that within the Alexandrian Critical Text family.

Also here is a footnote from the same article concerning the KJV translators use of the Latin manuscripts:

Hills, pg.198-208 Note: Most readers automatically assume whenever they read of “the Latin Vulgate” that it must always be in reference to the corrupt Vulgate of Jerome. But this is not always the case. The Old Latin of the early Waldenses were also referred to as “the Latin Vulgate” for many years before Jerome produced his revision. Also, Erasmus had translated his own Latin NT as did Beza. It is common knowledge that the KJV translators used the Greek NT of both Erasmus and Beza. Therefore, with that in mind it is highly probable that the Latin versions they collated may have also been that of Erasmus and Beza and not just that of Jerome.

To add to this point, I just found out the other day that Miles Coverdale edited his own Latin version of the Scriptures.

Anyways, I hope this info helps. God bless.

[Cody1611]

Thanks for the reply, brother. That helped a lot.

God Bless

[peopleoftheway]

[QUOTE=Cody1611;6496 Sorry for all the questions, but I need my sword sharpened.[/QUOTE]

Believing in every word that is in that Book you Hold in your hand, unlearned in scripture but Studying to show yourself approved unto God is evidence enough Brother that your Sword is sharper than the Butter Knives Modernists Hold in theirs. Steer Clear of Scholarly Types on certain sites that rather than debate with scripture will try and confuse you "with the Greek". Let you heart speak volumes if its Christ centered. Take no heartache off anyone that defends their Bible with "The Greek". Your Bible holds solid the Doctrine of Christ and does not conform to the vain Philosophy of men that tinker with The Blood and the Deity.
Scripture never reinterpreted to Suit Our OWN DESIRES that is the KJV my friend.

Posted in the Name of My Saviour The Lord Jesus Christ.