Subject: Re: Kjv gods word & KJV ONLYISM
Date: 9 Feb 1999 13:17:24 GMT
From:  (Andrew Bromage)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

G'day all.

I wrote:

>>The thing about a KJV Onlyist is that they believe:

>>
The Word of God alone = The KJV alone

>>Now I suspect that you do not fall into this category.  From what you've
>>said, you're a Majority Text advocate, which means you would probably
>>happily use, say, the NKJV.

I now realise that is not the case.   (my apologies,
I've forgotten your name) is neither a MT advocate nor a KJV onlyist.

My impression now is that the position can be summarised:


- The Textus Receptus (presumably later editions of it,

  e.g. Beza) is the closest Greek text to the autographs

  that we currently have.

- This does not rule out the possibility of a better text,

  it only says that we don't actually have one.

- The KJV is the best English translation of this text, and

  thus the best English translation in existence.

- This doesn't rule out the possibility of a better

  translation.

- Elizabethan-era English is real English, and what we have

  since then is dumbed-down.  This is what we should be

  teaching our kids.

- This doesn't say anything about the state of the English

  language before 1600, but that's tangential to the

  discussion.

- There is no conspiracy amongst modern translators and

  textual critics to corrupt the Bible.  Text-critical

  scholars act in good faith, but are simply wrong.

If anyone thinks this is not a fair summary, please correct me.

 (Ken Smith) writes:

>There is one verse in KJV and NKJV which is not found in the Majority
>Text, but which is in the Textus Receptus.
>The verse about the "three heavenly witnesses" in I John 5:7 is
>omitted without comment from virtually all translations, since there
>are only four (if my memory is correct) late Greek manuscripts which
>contain it

If I'm reading the textual apparatus in my NA26 correctly, there are
only two MSS (and the Vulgate) which contain the verse in its entirety,
and six more manuscripts which contain differing bits and pieces of the
verse.  Only one comes from before the 16th Century.  Four of these
eight MSS relegate it to a marginal note, including the oldest (from
the 10th Century), and that note appears to have been added some time
after the original composition of the manuscript.  The ones where the
verse is not in a marginal note date from the 16th Century.

This is about as strong as external evidence gets, but just in case
you're not convinced, the internal evidence challenge is to explain
how the variations managed to appear.  (Three non-faked MSS which
include the whole verse, four which include different parts of the
verse and hundreds which don't include any of it.)

>and one of these was written especially to argue that
>Stephanus was in error for not including it in his Greek NT.
 ^^^^^^^^^
No, it was while Erasmus was still in charge.  This is basically
correct, though.  It's a fake.

>The only version I am aware of which has a marginal note about this
>verse is the NIV.

The New English Translation, which I must plug (http://www.bible.org/)
has the best set of footnotes I've ever seen, including an extended
discussion of this verse.

>From memory, the New Jerusalem has a footnote, but I don't have it
handy at the moment.  From even hazier memory, the NKJV contains a
footnote too.

>Do supporters of the Majority Text reject KJV and NKJV because they
>*don't* follow the Majority Text?

Supporters of the Majority Text aren't quite sure what the Majority
Text is in a few places, but on the whole prefer the NKJV as the
best example of a MT translation, even though it may have
imperfections.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage