Sam Gipp’s most recent “What’s the Big Deal about the KJV?” video tackles two questions:
- Did the King James translators add words to the Bible?
- Does the KJV correct the original Hebrew and Greek?
[1:26] Gipp’s first slight-of-hand is to state that no Bible believer would say that the English “corrects” the original Hebrew and Greek, but then says that no one has the original Greek and Hebrew. What he says without saying it is that the KJV is intact but the original languages are not. It is a distinction without a difference. He still believes the original languages have been superseded by the English.
[1:51] Gipp’s assertion that the italicized words of the KJV represent only words added to smooth out the translation is patently false. While this was certainly the most common reason, they also used italics for phrases they added which did not appear in the text, such as the brother of in 2 Samuel 21:19. This addition was made solely to synchronize this passage with 1 Chronicles 20:5. There is absolutely no textual evidence for changing the reading.
[2:09] When he recasts honest questions as “this friend of yours would be upset” about using the KJV, he is pulling another fast one. I do not know of any honest, English-speaking believer who would be upset about the italicized phrases in the KJV. What upsets people is the assertion that KJVO people make concerning the inspiration of those italicized words as being on par with the underlying text.
[2:50] Dr. Gipp shows his young friend the italicized phrase who had been the wife of in Matthew 1:6 as evidence of the necessity of KJV translators adding phrases for ease of reading, and then says, “Surprise! This is not a King James Bible! It is New King James.” He claims this proves that the guy’s friend is ignorant because if they have a problem with additions to the text, they would have a problem with every translation. He creates a straw man – plain and simple.
Dr. Gipp is also ignorant of the development of the English text here. The particular line he is citing is not from the KJV. It dates back to the Vulgate. Only the word wife was added (by Tyndale, not by the KJV translators). This is a case where the translation is implied by the original. He ignores passages like Psalm 7:11 where the translators supplied the words the wicked to demonstrate a particular view of God. He also ignores passages where the Old Testament translation is adapted to the New Testament quotes or paraphrases, such as when Peter quotes Psalm 16:8 in Acts 2:25. While these additions do make the finished translation more cohesive, they give a false impression that the NT writers knew these passages verbatim, which they did not.
[3:42] Another case of Dr. Gipp being either disingenuous or ignorant. He claims that the KJV supplies something lacking in the text by clarifying that “flies” in Exodus 8 is in italics. He completely misses that “swarms of flies” was idiomatic and a perfectly acceptable translation of the Hebrew עָרֹב, as evidenced by its use in Cranmer and Geneva. That the KJV translators put “flies” in italics is actually unfortunate. There was no reason to do that.
[4:36] Gipp’s explanation of the addition of italics in 2 Samuel 21:19 is the same weak argument used by everyone who just has to have the KJV be perfect. He refers to modern translations as “pulling those italics out” when in fact, this is not what happens at all. Modern translations do not utilize the system of using italics because a translation is a translation. The italics should be removed in 2 Samuel 21:19. They do not belong to the text, and saying anything else is acknowledging exactly what Gipp says he does not believe – that the KJV corrects the shortcomings of the original languages.
[5:51] Arguing that the KJV does not have contradictions in it and therefore prevents confusion is absurdity. There is no contradiction to say two people killed someone named Goliath. The Philistines often used the same title for multiple people who filled the same office. Two people killing someone named Goliath does not make a contradiction, anymore than saying I like Sam and I don’t like Sam is a contradiction if I am talking about two different people named Sam. Gipp’s argument boils down to “Choose the Bible that is easier” instead of “honor the text.” And then he throws a coloring book into the situation.
Once again, Gipp would rather be confident in the KJV than rely upon the text or do any kind of hard work. The KJV is just easier for him – there’s no way around it. He is dismissive of any kind of historical or textual work that might be needed to deal with the realities of the manuscript evidence and the process of translation. He asserts that if it is in the KJV, it is absolutely true; and then solves all his problems by putting that presupposition ahead of any other evidence.
It would be nice if the situation were that simple; but it is not. To be honest, if I were that guy sitting across from Gipp, I would not just smile at his simple hand-waving dismissals and ignore my friend who is asking good questions. I would want to research this further. Fortunately (for him), Gipp is surrounded by people who just accept his explanations as absolute.
King James Only? 
Greetings,
I just responded to this post on my blog:
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/
Also checkout my KJV Sites List for many different articles, books, and sermons on the KJB issue.
–Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
For future libel, “Hoss,” my name is spelled E-R-I-K.
1. I did not “start a rumor” about “Dr.” Gipp. It is well known that he holds no academic doctorate – no matter how many books he has written.
2. Yes, we DO have the original Greek and Hebrew. The issue with the Greek is not that we don’t have all of it, but rather that we have too much of it.
3. There is no “Alexandrian cult” and I did not write this article to get a pat on the back. I wrote it because Gipp provides faulty arguments and weak evidence.
4. No one cares about the italicized additions to the KJV except KJVO people. We all known they are added for ease of reading. It is the KJVO people who treat them as inspired.
5. You cannot argue that something SHOULD be in the text when it is not and then argue that you have the preserved words.
6. I never said Gipp was lazy. I said he took the easy path so his argument would work. In many cases, it is far harder work to argue for something that has no grounding in truth than to simply present the truth.
Oh, are you sure that is your name? Please check your birth certificate and drivers license 🙂
I don’t care much about the doctorate issue.
As for #2, how do you know? Can you prove that statement: “we DO have the original Greek and Hebrew. The issue with the Greek is not that we don’t have all of it, but rather that we have too much of it.”??? Proof?
#3, There is an Alexandrian Cult just as much as there is a “KJV Only”.
#4, Okay
#5, What is the “text”? The Text I referred to was the King James Bible and the words are in it.
#6, the way your article was written it seemed to indicate that Dr. Gipp was lazy and always trying to take the easy way. I was simply pointing out that he is not lazy and does a lot of work.
Thanks for the response, and don’t forget to check your license 🙂
In Christ,
–Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
Just a piece of advice. When you insult someone and accuse them of lying, they are not going to be inclined to think your jokes are humorous or in good taste.
Come on, don’t be insulted. I laugh at funny remarks made by James R. White, such as in his “Dr. Gipp sends me a gift” video.
Our differences of faith on the Bible issue should not effect a good joke.
If we both have believed on Christ trusting His gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Eph.1:13, Acts 13:38-39, 16:31)then we are brothers in Christ and can enjoy good humor, despite other differences. Wouldn’t you agree?
Besides, we both know you checked your license and didn’t like what you saw….Eric.
What are your beliefs outside of the Bible issue? Are you a Baptist? I am very similar to a Baptist, though much more dispensational than most. Sometimes referred to as the “Grace Movement” or “Berean Movement”. Similar to Cornelius Stam, J.C. O’Hair, and Charles F. Baker. Most of the movement nowadays is full of KJB believers with all but a few exceptions. We emphasize the doctrine of “ye are not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14) and the distinctiveness of the revelation given to Paul in regards to the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:1-9, Col. 1:24-28, Rom. 11:13, 15:15-16, 16:25, 1 Tim. 1:13-16). A lot of that is on my blog.
In Christ,
–Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
You really don’t understand how obnoxious your joke is, do you? Please stop. It isn’t a funny remark. It is annoying.
My biography is available on the website. You are free to read it.
Okay. No more jokes. (Eph. 5:4)
Now would you care to prove your statement?
“we DO have the original Greek and Hebrew. The issue with the Greek is not that we don’t have all of it, but rather that we have too much of it.”
I believe that is very unlikely. Because, as you may know, only the original autographs were inspired and human copyists make errors. How do you know that you have “all of it”?
Thanks. –Eli
Have you ever read a critical text of the New Testament?
If you have ever studied the Greek text, you would know that we have thousands upon thousands of variant readings. In most cases, the issue is not that we don’t know what the text says. The issue is we have multiple options as to what the text says. (The exception to this is the couple of places where we have no ancient text, such as 1 John 5:7-8 which appears only in the Vulgate and a couple very late Greek manuscripts.)
No sir, I only have/use the TR texts (Stephanas, Beza, etc.) I have been thinking about getting the Nestle/Aland 27th edition just for reference.
But I do know that we have thousands of variant readings. Most of them are very similar though–do not effect the meaning or doctrine. But the variant readings between the Byzantine and Alexandrian are too major to be ignored.
1.) Since we have so many readings, how do you know that we have the right ones? Can you prove that we do have the original readings and how we would decide which ones are the original?
2.) As for 1 John 5:7, here are some things to consider.
A.)Where did Jerome get the reading?
B.) How many “ancient” manuscripts of 1 John do we even have in Greek? There are about 500, but only 12 of them are from before the 10th century. That means that most of our Greek readings are going to be “late”.
C.) It is quoted by early church “fathers” and is also in some other Latin manuscripts. For a good study on 1 John 5:7 I recommend these two sites
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Latin-manuscripts
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
Do you have any works by Dr. Thomas Holland? I like his material.
–Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
I am quite familiar with the many editions of the textus receptus and I worked with my father on digitizing Scrivener’s edition for Logos Bible Software when I was younger. Despite your libelous accusations to the contrary, I am not a member of your non-existent Alexandrian cult. There are many places where my own examination of the manuscript evidence (not published editions) has led me to conclude that NA adopts the incorrect reading in the main text, although I have never found a place where the apparatus did not point to the reading I feel more accurately represents the original reading.
I am familiar with the arguments on the Comma. I met Dr. Holland many years ago at a Dean Burgon Society meeting. You will note that his citations of ancient witnesses do not represent quotations of the Comma – only indirect statements. At best, they are paraphrases. As such, it is just as likely that the ancient witnesses represent a doctrinal consent on the meaning of the passage and not necessarily an argument for the Comma’s presence in the text. The earliest appearance of the Comma is in a marginal gloss, and it is at least reasonable that the gloss entered the text as glosses do.
It has been argued that Erasmus included the Comma in his third edition not because he was shown Greek manuscript evidence but because it was accepted doctrine and did appear in the Vulgate. As in so many cases, the concrete facts are not immediately apparent and KJVO people are just as reliant upon their scholars as non-KJVO people are.
You need to understand that textual criticism is not a science. It is an art. Subjectivity will always be a component of choosing readings and therefore it behooves the critic not to be emotionally attached to any one published edition. I am not opposed to the King James Version, nor will you ever find me arguing for the exclusive use of any published translation. I express preferences, based on a lifetime of study. If Dr. Gipp would be intellectually honest and present his views in the same light, I would not take issue with his arguments.
Thanks again for the response. I only have one more question and then I’m done:
1.) Since we have so many readings, how do you know that we have the right ones? Can you prove that we do have the original readings and how we would decide which ones are the original?
I know you said that you did your own examination, you said where you were led to conclude, and finally what you “feel”. I do not have a problem with that, I just want to know if that can be proven.
Can you prove that the readings you “feel” are correct and that we even have all of the original readings available? (that is what I want to know if you can prove)…or do you just have faith that God has preserved His word perfectly? (no loss)
That is my last question. Thanks again.
–Eli “Hoss” Caldwell
Very well done. I hope to see you posting more. I enjoy your blog. I have had many run-ins with KJV Only folk while doing street evangelism. They are bent on making the KJV issue “the” issue even of salvation and unity in the Church. It is sad to behold. It is like to talking to cults. They are bent with a worldview shaped by a 17th century translation.
With interest I have read your critique of Sam Gipp and the responses by “Hoss” and find it interesting that you are not aware of what the “critical text” people say about the “Original Greek” or the “Autographs” (as they describe the Original Greek Text). Here are a couple of quotes for you:
1) Alvah Hovey, long time Greek professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY. In his introduction to John A. Broadus’ book,”An American Commentary of the New Testament: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” published by the American Baptist Publication Society in 1886 on pages xxxiv-xxxvi he comments on the text of the New Testament Greek and says “It may expound for the most part a current version of the text but it can never do this in a safe and satisfactory manner without comparing it with the Greek Original. But that original, as it came from the hands of the apostles and their associates, is no longer in existence.”
2. Daniel B. Wallace in his article “The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts” makes the following statement. He says, “When it comes to the New Testament, the original twenty-seven books disappeared long ago, probably within decades of their composition.”
Maybe the “original autographs” have disappeared. That leaves the search for the “original Greek text” up to textual critics who all carry their own baggage of bias, one way or the other.
Thanks for reading this,
Jerry Rockwell
Rockwell: “Alvah Hovey, long time Greek professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville KY.”
Fact check: “Alvah Hovey (1820-1903) was the long-time professor then President of Newton Theological Institution in Newton, Massachusetts from 1849 to 1899.”
Not a Southern Baptist by any means as the Rockwell post seems to suggest.
Thanks, Dr. Robinson.
This seems to me to be just one BIG vanity fair!!! How academically intelligent all of you must be and feel on your high horses!
Why don’t you just go to God for what He says. Don’t any of you have FAITH, or don’t any of you actually BELIEVE God anymore?
AS IT IS WRITTEN;
(Galatians 3:16) “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
(Luke 8:11) Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
(1 John 5:7) “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
(Acts 4:11-12) “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. {12} Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
(Revelation 19:13) “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.”
I cannot speak for others, but my faith in the Scriptures is strong enough to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Faith is not the same thing as willful ignorance.
Did you read the scriptures, Gods Word?
ONE seed = ONE Word! NOT Many!
ONE name = ONE Word! NOT another!
(Galatians 1:6-9) “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: {7} Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. {8} But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. {9} As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
You have NO faith nor do you believe in God if you believe in a different testimony.
(Matthew 18:3) “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
(Proverbs 2:5) “Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.”
Amigodana,
First of all, it is NOT your place to pronounce me as faithless simply because I disagree with you.
Second, it is actually your contention that the KJV is the ONLY testimony of God on the planet earth?
Erik,
First of all;
(1 Corinthians 5:12) “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?”
(1 Corinthians 4:1-4) “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. {2} Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. {3} But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. {4} For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.”
(James 4:12) “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”
Second of all;
(John 1:1) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
(1 John 5:7) “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
[facepalm]
So, whenever the Scriptures speak of the Word, they are speaking of the KJV?
Do you believe God? He has an “ONLY” begotten Son. ONE Word!!!
(John 3:16) “¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
(1 John 5:7) “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
(Acts 4:11-12) “This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. {12} Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Did I, at any time, question the uniqueness of Christ? Are you so deluded as to equate a 17th century English translation of the Bible with the only begotten Son? That kind of a view is far more akin to the Muslim view of the Qu’ran than it is to the Christian view of the Bible.
I am going to go ahead and assume that this nonsensical conflation is the result of a poor education and/or ideologically blinded rhetoric.
Concerning the KJV;
NO ONE has ever been able to show ANY definitive contradictions within the text of the KJV. Unless you go to man who try’s to reinterpret what he thinks it should have, could have, or possibly have said.
Where does God give you the scripture that say’s that you can interpret the Word?
(1 Corinthians 4:3-4) “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. {4} For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.”
You’re just rambling now, amigodana.
You seriously think that Christians are not supposed to INTERPRET the Bible? That is just about the most ignorant statement ever made on this site.
Show me the scripture that say’s that you can?
As it is Written;
(2 Peter 1:19-21) “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: {20} Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
This is why I question your faith and belief, Do you not believe God?
“..Do not interpretations belong to God?…”
(Genesis 40:8) “And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.”
1. Ezra had capable teachers interpreting the Scriptures for the people (Ezra 4:8). According to you, he was doing something wrong.
2. The Church in Acts struggled to interpret the teachings of Jesus (Acts 10, 15).
In all ages, the revealed Word has required interpretation. We cannot simply assume that we know what it means just because we want to. That is the height of arrogance.
Proof-texting a word is the weakest possible form of an argument. The interpretation of dreams (which is what is spoken of in Genesis 40) has nothing to do with the interpretation of the text of the Scriptures.
Seriously, if you are going to just continue to violate the context and meaning of the Scriptures, do it elsewhere. This site is for intelligent discussion, not for trolling nonsense.
Quote: “1. Ezra had capable teachers interpreting the Scriptures for the people (Ezra 40:8). According to you, he was doing something wrong.”
I am going to be kind here since I also have and will in the future make this same mistake. I will practice charity even though you have called me names.
Where is Ezra 40:8 and what exactly does it say?
Now, concerning Acts, the Word says quite clearly that:
(2 Peter 3:16) “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
These still have NO bearing on letting Man interpret the Word. In fact God says;
Jeremiah 17:5 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Do you accuse God of contradicting himself, or that His Word is confusion?
Your response is going to be to exaggerate a typo that you could easily have seen was a typo? Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.
I am politely giving you an opportunity to correct. Would you care to do that, or are you getting flustered?
I am not going to stoop to your condescending attitude, I assure you.
Nehemiah 8:8.
And you can knock off the sanctimonious condescension. Your entire argument is based on willful ignorance and pseudo-spirituality. You cannot read words without interpreting them. Trying to assert that we should not interpret a WRITTEN revelation is like suggesting that a football plays itself.
Frankly, none of the things you have said have made the slightest bit of sense, so I am frustrated with your inability to answer questions without slipping into pontification. This tactic is so ridiculously common among KJVO advocates that it annoys me. So, I am done with this conversation. Frankly, I have far more important things to do than argue with someone like you who chooses willful ignorance over common sense and prefers opinions to evidence.
“And you can knock off the sanctimonious condescension.”
It is my hope and point to all this, that you and others know what it is that God say’s, I am sorry that you feel that way about me.
“Your entire argument is based on willful ignorance and pseudo-spirituality.”
I have given you God’s wisdom and knowledge (scripture), nothing less, nothing more.
“You cannot read words without interpreting them. Trying to assert that we should not interpret a WRITTEN revelation is like suggesting that a football plays itself.”
I am sorry that you think that we should usurp God’s authority.
Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
Again, I am sorry that the Words of God don’t make sense to you. The scriptures do say;
(Ecclesiastes 2:26) “For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.”
I assure you that I am not trying to argue, its too bad that you think of it that way. As a Christian it is my job to share God’s Word, Truth, Wisdom, and Knowledge with you, contrary to man’s. The rest is between you and God.
It truly saddens me that you honestly think you don’t interpret the Bible. The irony of your assertion is that you ARE interpreting the texts you keep quoting (incorrectly, I might add).
Maybe I have not made it very clear. Can you please show me scriptures that disagree or contradict what I have shown you?
There is an “only begotten Son” and He is the Word according to God and not man.
Which by God’s interpretation means not another gospel or another jesus. There is only “one” seed, which also is the Word, and not many seeds according to God.
There is no other name that can save you and it is God that say’s, His name is the Word.
So please give me scriptures or you are just asking me to not believe God. I can’t do that.
Why would you trust mans vain philosophy’s over God’s simplicity?
(2 Corinthians 11:3-4) “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. {4} For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”
Please give me the same love and respect that I have shown you and show me in God’s Word, NOT man’s.
The issue is not that there are Scriptures that contradict what you say. The issue is that you misinterpret Scripture on the grounds that you don’t need to interpret Scripture. (And I’m not entirely sure you even understand what the word interpret means. You seem unwilling or incapable of examining the context of Scripture, relying on your own “God’s simplicity” rather than engaging with the Scriptures with the necessary intelligence and skill.
Here’s the problem.
I have no issue whatsoever with your assertions about Christ as the only begotten and the Word. This is a completely scriptural assertion. Jesus is presented as the unique Son of God, John’s μονογενής (Jn 3:16, 1 Jn 4:9).John uses the term λογός to describe Christ (Jn 1:1). Jesus is the Word because God revealed him to be the Word through John, and there is only one Jesus.
But then somehow you make this enormous leap from Jesus being the one Word to the text of the textus receptus being the one Word – thus making the Bible equivalent to Jesus. This is bibliolatry, clear and simple. The Bible revealed Jesus to us; but it is not equal to Him; and it is blasphemy to claim that we can attribute the praise and glory due to Christ to the Scriptures. There is no scriptural basis for this. It is a purely human interpretation. Just because you can justify your bibliolatry by attributing divine status to the way you interpret the Scriptures does not mean you are not doing exactly what you say no one is allowed to do.
Now, with that said, let me address the various texts you have misinterpreted.
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
Paul is dealing with the very specific problem of a false gospel being preached by false apostles who were questioning Paul’s authority over the Church and accusing him of being forceful in letters but a weakling in real life (2 Cor 10:7-12). His testimony of ministry was powerful, and the Corinthians were being distracted by people claiming to have equal or greater authority than he did.
Have I done anything like this? No. This text has no bearing on our conversation. The only reason you believe is is pertinent is that you have equated your KJV Bible or the TR text with Jesus and the gospel – without a shred of biblical evidence.
Proverbs 2:6
How can you possibly argue that this means we should not interpret the Scriptures? Beside the fact that you clearly don’t understand how a genre like a proverb works, you are utterly misusing the text. Why would it be necessary for us to meditate upon the LORD’s Word (Ps 1:2, 19:14, 119:15) or to meditate on the LORD’s works that are not necessarily recorded in the Scriptures (Ps 145:5). Why indeed would we need to engage our minds at all if all we are supposed to do is passively receive some kind of supercilious “Word” that we are forbidden to actually interact with?
2 Peter 3:16
How did you make the leap that Peter is talking about the decisions of the Jerusalem council in Acts to Peter’s discussion of Paul’s epistles? There is absolutely no correlation between these, and your argument is – again – absurd.
Jeremiah 17:5
Again, the Bible is not just a collection of pithy sayings you can quote to prove your point. You need to actually read it to understand it. If you had read this rather than pulling it from whatever resource you are relying upon, you would know that Jeremiah is prophesying against Judah for relying upon their own counsel in going to war rather than in heeding the word of the LORD through the prophets. If you knew Old Testament history, you would know that in the monarchy, the prophets had a unique office in the government of Judah and they served as God’s mouthpiece on national affairs. Jeremiah is not warning against someone interpreting the Bible. He is warning a nation because they have violated God’s mandated order for their nation.
Genesis 40:8
I have already addressed this. It is a specific statement about the interpretation of dreams, not about interpreting the written Scriptures – which makes sense since none of the Bible would have been written down at the time of Joseph.
2 Peter 1:19-21
I don’t understand why you are convinced I am trying to contradict the Bible. It is a straw man you have constructed and argue against for some reason; but it has nothing to do with the discussion. The key to understanding Peter’s words is not the word interpretation but the word private. Individual Christians are not free to interpret the Bible on their own. The interpretation must be in keeping with the counsel of the Scriptures and the consensus of the Church (not a denomination but the body of all believers in Christ). In this sense, your “the TR = Jesus” views are utterly out of keeping with the consent of the Church.
This will be my last response to you, no matter what superfluous and disjointed argument you make in your next comment. I am fully aware that you are convinced of your views and no amount of truth or facts will sway you because you believe you have the “truth” even if no one else agrees. This is the most dangerous kind of ignorance; and it is detrimental to the work of Christ in His Church. Frankly, it is a waste of my time to continue to discuss this with you.
I confronted about 5 people in a Bible Forum and every last person was attacking the KJV! The part that floored me the most was when I showed them that 40 or more verses are completely omitted from the NIV. You know what there argument was? “How do we know the KJV people didn’t add those verses in the Bible”! Wow, that’s denial if I ever heard it. Let’s pray for these folks.
AC
Hello AC, there seems to be a “blind spot” in the thinking of many of the Critical Text people and I am finding in the Majority Text people as well. There is an excellent article that addresses some of the “blindness” of even people like Bruce Metzger. Go to http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2012i/Pickering.pdf and read this article by Wilbur Pickering. It is an eye opener. God bless.
When a KJV advocate argues for verses being omitted, they are generally unwilling to acknowledge that those verses are included in the KJV only because they were in a few late Greek manuscripts and (more importantly) the Latin Vulgate. If you are willing to allow the medieval Vulgate to be the standard of your Biblical text, that is your own prerogative. For me, I would prefer to rely more heavily upon the pre-Catholic textual tradition if possible, and if those readings are not present in those texts (and they generally are not), then I would rather they be listed in a footnote as possible readings than included in the main text as if they are absolutely original.
Stick with God AC and don’t listen to these that try to take away from the faith in God.
(Mark 4:14-15) “¶ The sower soweth the word. {15} And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.”
(Matthew 13:19) “When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.”
They believe in the power of man more than the power of God. Take a look and see, they will always point outside the scriptures to some article, rather than pointing you to God’s Word.
(Colossians 2:8) “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
[facepalm]
Mr. DiVietro, Are you saying that the KJV is based on as you say “those verses are included in the KJV only because they were in a few late Greek manuscripts?” I’m a bit confused because over 5,000 witnesses to the text is not a “few.” Maybe you should check your statistics again. The places where there is not “majority” witness are passages like John 7:53-8:11; Mark 16:69-20; 1John 5:7-8 and these all have “early” witness to their veracity and inclusion in the text. It is only the Critical Text people who do not want them there. Maybe you need to read the link I posted in an earlier note were Wilbur Pickering debunks the Critical Text and its integrity. I’m not sure where people get the idea that the TR is based on a “few late MSS” and again 5,000 witnesses is much better than 5 Critical Texts MSS which were owned primarily by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). Their Latin Vulgate (based on the Alexndrinus and Vaticanus MSS had lost its acceptance in the theological world and they scrambled to release these MSS to try and turn the tide against the RCC and its strangle hold on the true text of the Bible.
We are discussing the 40 texts supposedly removed from the KJV, not the majority readings as a whole.
So, let me address the specific texts you have cited as having “early” witness:
1. John 7:53-8:11 – It is absent from the following texts: P66, P75, א, B, L, N, T, W, X, Y, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 0141, 0211, 22, 33, 124, 157, 209, 788, 828, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, and 2193. Although A and C contain a version of the text, it would not have fit. The Syriac omits it, as do the Gothic and Old Latin. There are no citations of the story prior to the 12th century. Additionally, it appears in a different location in D, E, (F), G, H, K, M, U, Γ, Π, 1, 28, 565, 700 892, 1076, 1570, and 1582.
2. Mark 16:9-20 – on this, you are somewhat accurate since the reading does appear in A, C, D, K, W, X, Δ, Θ, Π, Ψ, 099, 0112, f13, 28, and 33. Washingtonianus has an expanded version, and many of the ancient versions have a condensed or altered version. The general argument used by CT editors is somewhat weak because it is based on the vocabulary used. What is more, there is considerable variation in the text itself even in the witnesses that contain it. While it is my opinion that is probably is original, there is enough contrary evidence to at least footnote it.
3. 1 John 5:7-8 – on this text, you are completely in error. There are no early witnesses to this reading. The reading exists in only seven Greek manuscripts (61, 88vr, 221vr, 429vr, 636vr, 918, and 2318). 61 is Codex Montfortianus, which is often pointed to as the evidence that Erasmus used to include the passage – although that story dates from over two centuries AFTER Erasmus’ work and is probably apocryphal. Erasmus himself said he included the text because it was in the Vulgate and it did not contradict any known doctrine. The earliest quote of the text is by a heretic (Priscillian), so I would be cautious in utilizing that fact as support.
Contrary to your assertion, I did not assert that the TR is based on a “few late MSS” although it most assuredly is based primarily on the Vulgate and the readings that coincide with it. This was Erasmus’ stated goal when he compiled it under the auspices of Pope Leo X, a friend of one of Erasmus’ peers. What I DID assert was that THESE READINGS are based on a few late manuscripts. Hopefully you are capable of distinguishing between a statement about an entire published text and some readings.
The “5 Critical Texts MSS” were not owned by the Roman Catholic Church (except Vaticanus, and they got that one after the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople). They were possessed by the Greek Orthodox, and to my knowledge there has not been a single credible scholar who has been able to demonstrate a direct correlation between Alexandrines and Vaticanus (which are EASTERN texts) and the Vulgate (which is a WESTERN text).
One last entry on this discussion.
1. The text of John 7:53-John 8:11 was not basically challenged as part of the text until 1881 when Westcott-Hort published their “new” Greek text calling it the “Original” text. It had stood for 300+ years until Lachmann decided it was time to “dethrone” the TR (his words). This initiated a concerted effort to develop a Bible that fit the Liberal Theology of the Germans and many of the Continental theologians. This involved replacing the text they did not like because it did not fit into their preconceived view of the Bible. They are the ones who invented “Form Criticism” and the Documentary Hypothesis for authorship of the Pentateuch. They did not like the way the Bible addressed things so they sought a way to discredit it and they started in the Old Testament. That then migrated to the New Testament and the theological minds are in that same mind set today although the Higher Criticism was imported from Europe by the young budding theologs journeying to Europe to get their theology. There was a time in this country when Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists basically agreed on many things taught in the Bible. In fact there was a time when most Presbyterians were Dispensational until Higher Criticism began to infiltrate their institutions of higher learning.
2. Mark 16:9-20 has been and will always be a part of my Bible. I don’t like to remove a text that discounts the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. I know it is taught elsewhere by why remove a witness to justify some academic pride?
3. You evidently have not read all the literature that gives evidence of the veracity of 1 John 5:6-7. You are wrong about this text. Here is a quote from B. Metzger: “The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is a fourth century Latin treatise entiitled “Liber Apologeticus” (Chap. 4), atributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385 A.D.) or to his follow Bishop Instantius…In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onward it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate.” “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” by Bruce Metzger (London: United Bible Society 1971) pages 715-716). Point, if you cannot prove the text wrong then attack the places or people associated with it. [I’m not able to introduce italics so I have used quotations marks to indicate this.]
4. Maybe your memory slipped you but the Sianiticus MSS was supposedly found in a Roman Catholic Monastary on Mt. Sinai and was supposedly in the trash can for destruction. It was conveniently discovered by Constantin von Tishendorf.
Something you have left out of the equation and that is the major MSS of Aleph, B, C and P75 do not agree in many places. In fact Mr. Kurt Aland has said, “The best example of this [where MSS do not agree] is Codes Vaticanus (B, 03). Earlier textual critics were at a loss to explain why the quality of its text in the Pauline letters is so inferior to its text in the Gospels…The same question is raised by Codex Alexandrinus (A). Its text in the Gospels is quite poor (differing only slightly from the Majority text).” (Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, “The Text of the New Testament,” Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981, page 50.” If you have the book you can read the rest of the quote which is really edifying and revealing in the debate over the quality of the text and the concordance of the same.
This will be my last entry on this subject. I have read most of the literature and was trained in Greek Textual Criticism by one of the best at promoting this discipline, Harold Hoehner. I have been an advocate of the Critical Text and preached from the NASB, NKJV, NIV et al but came to a realization that the text of the UBS Greek Testmaent was not an honest presentation of the evidence. For an example of this see Acts 16:12 in the UBS text, 3rd edition, and the primary evidence of the variant reading they chose. The primary evidence was “cj” which according to the glossery stands for “conjecture.” In other words the reading that Metzger, Aland, Black, Martini (RCC Cardinal) and Wikgren was their opinion. What is more interesting is they changed it in the 4th Edition of the UBS text. I understand it is in its 5th edition. One of the criticisms of Erasmus was that he developed his Greek text on a few MSS (some say six some more) and the TR went through several editions. Well, well, well, it seems that the UBS text has gone through five editions and it is based on a handfull of MSS. The Nestle-Aland text is in its 28th edition and may be making the 29th, I’m not sure. Where is the foolishness going to end?
God Bless
Jerry Rockwell
You should really check your facts.
1. St. Catherine’s Monastery has NEVER been a Roman Catholic monastery. It is under the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. It is an Eastern Orthodox monastery.
2. My statement that the 1 John 5 passage was in reference to Priscillian who was a HERETIC. I got my facts right. Frankly, I don’t see how you missed that and then cited the exact fact as if it was proving me wrong.
3. I did not “leave out” ANYTHING. I answered your very specific references.
4. I don’t know who Harold Hoehner is; but I was ALSO trained extensively in Greek criticism from WITHIN the KJVO camp and withdrew from it because the arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
5. Why is there foolishness in releasing new editions of a Greek text that strives to include textual evidence as it is discovered and collated? The N-A editions are not significant revisions. They simply incorporate new evidence into the critical apparatus. Which is more disingenuous? To pretend like the Greek text was set in the 16th century despite accumulating evidence that there WERE textual variants, even among the manuscripts used by those who established the TR or to be honest and include the readings in the textual apparatus so that self-respecting people are aware of the difficulties in collating the manuscript evidence.
Is the N-A text perfect? No. Neither is the TR text. They are published editions based on the manuscript evidence available at the time. Frankly, I get sick and tired of people trying to pretend the TR is something that it simply is not. The publishers did not claim it was perfect. Even the term “textus receptus” is misused when people present it as if this was a monolithic text. The Elzevir brothers used the term in reference to the PUBLISHED editions, not to the manuscript evidence.
Grace and peace.
Mr. DiVietro, I know I said there would be no more posts from me but I do need to state one more thing. I was not aware that the Sinai Monastery was an Eastern Orthodox monastery. That explains why they had the MSS designated for the trash. As best as I know they use the Byzantine text and did not see them as valuable because they did not represent the truth. You evidently did not read my last post and failed to acknowledge that I said that the best way to try to discredit something if you cannot find anything wrong with it is to discredit the ones (or maybe fabricate someone) who were supposed to initiate the use of 1 John 5:7-8. You still have not read all that has been said about the Johannan Commma because there are some very capable scholars that see the evidence as giving enough veracity that it should be included in the text. The liberal mind gets locked into a rut and will not look at all the evidence, just that which supports their view.
About evidence concerning the UBS text. You did not respond to the problem I noted about Acts 16:12. The way it is treated in the UBS 3rd edition is dishonest. Maybe you should read the RSV, ESV, and the NIV in Luke 3:33. They fabricate some names that are not Bible names like “Admin” and “Arni” (maybe the corruption of a professional golfer’s name). The NIV does not use them but has a note that they are in “other manuscripts very widely.” The Greek text of the UBS has it this way. Maybe the UBS made a mistake but do not admit it. Why don’t you do yourself a favor and read the article by Dr. Pickering at this location: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2012i/Pickering.pdf. It might shed some light on the darkness you seem to be in concerning the Greek text.
One of the things I have found out about sites like this one is that it is usually controlled by people who have a certain position and like to gather people around them who agree and if someone drifts into the circle who disagrees, he is excoriated to the point that they won’t come back. Why not interact with the evidence instead of finding fault with everything someone says who does not agree with you?
Have a good day. I won’t respond to any further posts on this issue. I will read what you say but go no further.
Thank you
Jerry Rockwell
I thought I made it very clear that I do not hold the NA text to be perfect, any more than I believe the TR is perfect. You are laboring under the assumption that I don’t think the NA/UBS has any mistakes.
1. Luke – there are an unbelievably large number of textual variants here. It is the Greek spelling of a Hebrew NAME, not a doctrine. Variants occur, even in majority texts.
2. Acts – it is a difficult quandary in the text. Do I agree with just conjecturing a reading? No. Is the reading there questionable as to what Luke meant and how the scribes transmitted it? Yes.
You are making mountains out of mole hills because the Bible HAS TO BE perfectly transmitted. That is unfortunate. The manuscript evidence is varied, even among the majority text. It is a fact that you seem to be able to not deal with it.
I am very familiar with William Pickering’s work.
I have asked the site owner to close my posts to comments, as these are old works and I have other priorities. I have expended too much time on it in the last couple of days.
Erik DiVietro: Closet Roman Catholic
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/erik-divietro-closet-roman-catholic.html
Please remove this slanderous nonsense from your website. It is unfounded and insulting.
It is all too typical of the KJVO pseudo-intellectual blogger pundits to throw around accusations rather than deal with the matter at hand.
The post has been slightly altered, hope it satisfies you a little.
And actually I have not tried to “appear” or “pretend” to be intellectual (I had to look up “pseudo” in the dictionary). My post was actually in opposition to your ‘intelligence” and “skill” thing, so why did you imply that I was a “pseudo-intellectual blogger”? That doesn’t make much sense.
I don’t deal with the matter at hand?….Says the guy that just accused me of slander without defending your statements which I call Roman Catholic.
Here’s something dealing with the matter at hand (KJB):
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/is-kjb.html
Thanks. –Eli Caldwell
I stand by my statements. There is no reason to defend them, and you would not accept the defense since you claim to reject human reason.
Your fail to parse my statements correctly (statements firmly based in the grammatical-historical, normal interpretation of Scripture) because you hold an anti-intellectual position that rejects anything except your narrowly defined (and admittedly ignorant) position. I am not interested in wasting my time defending myself against your foolishness. I just don’t want you throwing around false accusations. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Roman Catholic.
You have not altered the headline, which is a bold-faced and ignorant lie. I am not, nor have I ever been, a Roman Catholic – closet or otherwise. You are ignorantly blundering in the dark, attacking anyone who does not hold your own narrow views. Remove the headline, please.
Forgive me for interrupting here! But here is your words, Erik DiVietro, Just as you used them and in your context.
“I cannot speak for others, but my faith in the Scriptures is strong enough to stand up to reasonable scrutiny. Faith is not the same thing as willful ignorance.”
What I see is you calling people names, making fun of them for believing the bible. You are acting vainly puffed up and condescending towards people who believe God. And for what? Yes, we question your roots, belief and faith according to scripture. But like you said; if your faith is strong enough, why are you so arrogantly, visibly, and vainly defensive?
Show us why you believe, what you believe from the scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar!
You are ignorant and foolish. Those are both biblical words used accurately. I am done with you.
(Matthew 5:22) “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
Yep, foolish is a biblical Word.
A perfect example of your horrible hermeneutics based on simplicity rather than actual study. The book of Proverbs describe your ignorant behavior as foolishness over and over again.
Of course, you don’t care about that because God miraculously beams the “true” meaning of the text into your brain. Like I said, I am done with you.
I have requested that Bob Hayton shut down comments on this article. Until he does, I will be simply deleting any further comments.
Erik,
You say “You have not altered the headline, which is a bold-faced and ignorant lie.” You are apparently the liar, the headline use to say through direct accusation
“Erik DiVietro: Closet Roman Catholic”
Which is now
“Erik DiVietro: Closet Roman Cathloic?” (question mark)
I inserted the ??? throughout the post changing it from a direct accusation to a question based on the quotes.
You can’t read apparently.
Also, you can’t seem to make up your mind. First you said that I pretended to be intellectual, then “admittedly ignorant”, then anti-intellectual. Which is it? 🙂
The only ‘intellect’ I claim to possess is common sense and the ability to read words in context.
Have a good weekend. –Eli
I called you pseudo-intellectual, because you parade ignorance as if it is superior to intelligence. Inserting a question mark is nothing more than a token act. I am done with you and your foolishness.
As we are not updating this blog currently, as administrator I am shutting down comments until the time we do reopen for normal business.