Haran

Yes, I believe so, but Vaticanus was used as the base text (as it still is today in other works such as Swanson's) and the other MSS as supplements, so to speak.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Westcott & Hort mostly based their infamous edition on the Greek Sinaiticus, and on the Vaticanus MSS.

Haran was basically right when he said that the OS MSS were just becoming available at the time when Hort worked. The Curetonian was already available, and the OS Sinaiticus was discovered in 1892.

Quote:

Yuri was packaging the problem as a sin of omission, so it might be nice for him to solidly formulate his gripe. Specifics are what we want, not invective. spin

What you describe as "invective" accurately reflects my feelings about these issues. Are you trying to censor my right of free expression here?

When I have a "gripe", I usually formulate it without anyone having to give me prompts.

Yuri.

Haran

"Infamous"... Funny...

Sinaiticus was heavily used for sure, but I was referring to this information.

Are you sure you weren't thinking of Tischendorf who made extensive use of Sinaiticus, his own find?

spin

I don't care about your right to free expression. That is something for you to attend to.

I care about reading writings that try to communicate, while respecting the reader. Invective is a means of self-stimulation.


spin

conkermaniac

And likewise, weren't the Latin versions of the Bible translated under a monarchy as well? Do you propose that America become a monarchy (wait, it's becoming one already...)?

contracycle

Objections to Badfish's personal stance here are irrelevant. The KJV does have a history as the Official, State and Church approved version of the bible and has had for long enough for that to get culturally embedded in the English speaking world. I do not know exactly, but would expect, that some other version was considered authoritative in, say, German.

Lanakila

There is an element of fundie xianity that clings to the KJV of the Bible. Many of the adherants even believe the KJ translators to have been inspired. These people basically believe if you read their stuff that it floated down from heaven, and therefore cannot have any errors. Many of them won't even look at the evidence to the contrary, because if God is perfect than the Bible has to be perfect as well. (to me it's like a horse with blinders on, either your belief is true, or it doesn't stand against the evidence, but how would you know unless you look)There are numerous books and websites out there that are of this type slant. There is scholarship in evangelical xianity that says all this is bunk. That older manuscripts have to be better, because they are closer to the source. (makes sense)

Some of the books that promote the KJV onliest position:
New Age Bible Versions-Gail Riplinger, The Identity of the New Testament Text-Wilbur Pickering, Counterfeit of Genuine-David Otis Fuller. There are more much less scholarly works out there.

Some books written that say the KJV onliest position is flawed:
KJV Debate-D.A. Carson, KJV Controversy-James R. White

Yuri Kuchinsky

Lanakila,

I agree that much of what's being published on the KJV is unscientific, and based primarily on faith.

Nevertheless, these folks could still be right, but for the wrong reason!

OTOH, if you read M. Robinson on the Byzantine text (the basis of KJV), you will find that all his arguments purport to be scientifically based. Personally, I agree with most of them (although not all).

Thus, Dr. Robinson can be seen as a knight in shining armour who came to rescue Byzantine/Majority text from its unscientific proponents!

Regards,

Yuri.

Lanakila

Yuri

I don't believe the Bible to be inspired or pure or anything anymore but a collection of writings much of which is mythical. I was a KJV only person for a short time in the beginning of my journey of faith, but that is long over. The facts just didn't back up that position IMO. But its all pointless now. So sad I wasted so much time and energy, and other do too arguing about which translation to use. I used to say, stop fight about which one, and read and obey the one you have, when I was a fundie. I don't believe any of that anymore.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Lanakila, some of it is also very poetic, so this could be an inspired poetry...

Quote:

I was a KJV only person for a short time in the beginning of my journey of faith, but that is long over. The facts just didn't back up that position IMO. But its all pointless now. So sad I wasted so much time and energy, and other do too arguing about which translation to use. I used to say, stop fight about which one, and read and obey the one you have, when I was a fundie. I don't believe any of that anymore.

Well, good for you. You got over that fundy stuff!

But my own approach to the Bible is that of a historian. I just love studying ancient history (as well as modern). So when I say that the KJV is a better version, I mean that it is more faithful from a historical perspective, i.e. a more original text.

All the best,

Yuri.