Updated American Standard Version
Giving Bible readers what God said not what translators think God meant
When you open your Bible today, can you be confident that the words you are reading are, in fact, the very corresponding English words that were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and Jude nearly 2,000 years ago? Confident, you say? Just how confident are you? Are you confident because of what you know or what you hear?
From its very nature, New Testament textual criticism concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds that it brings to light.
In the days of Westcott and Hort, the argument was that the Alexandrian scribes removed what we have in the Byzantine manuscripts, while the other argument was that the Byzantine scribes added and altered. How could we ever solve it once and for all?
The King James version Onlyist love to use a handful of men’s arguments to defend the corrupt Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Hills’ work The King James Version Defended is used to have some kind of modern-day scholarly work to give credibility to their tired, old theories about Bible translations.
In the earliest days of the Christian church, after an apostolic letter was sent to a congregation or an individual, or after a gospel was written to meet the needs of a particular reading public, copies would be made in order to extend its influence and to enable others to profit from it as well. It was inevitable that such handwritten copies would contain a greater or lesser number of differences in wording from the original. NOTE: This is an introductory article, but filled with links to more in-depth articles if one desires a deeper look.
The primary weight of external evidence goes to the original language manuscripts. If the weight is so evenly distributed, it is difficult to make a decision; the versions and Church Fathers may serve to tip the scales. Manuscripts are to be weighed not counted. Certain families of manuscripts are more trustworthy (e.g. Alexandrian over Byzantine, Western, or Caesarean). In addition, certain manuscripts within a family are more faithful than others (e.g. P66 P75 01 03)
Generally speaking, if either Ἰησοῦς or Χριστός was alone in a reading, the scribal tendency was to expand either of them by adding the other. It would seem that this is not the case with this verse, as we ...
As some Christians have been studying their King James Version and comparing it to other modern translations, they have discovered that in the King James Version there are verses that these other translators removed, such as our Luke 17:36 under discussion herein, as well as Matthew 18:11; 23:14 that we discussed earlier this week, and...
Brian Walton (1600 – 29 November 1661) was an English priest and Bible scholar.
Are you a member of the King James Version Onlyist (KJVO) Cult or affiliated with it? What are the signs that the KJVOists are a cult? What is the true transmission of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus? Let’s begin by saying the King James Version Onlyist (KJVO) is no different from the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Mormons. They blindly accept information that is blatantly wrong that it leaves the rational mind bewildered. Some warning signs that the KJVO is a cult-minded group. If you are not willing to objectively read a book or article that counters your narrative, not even able to acknowledge basic truths, then you are in the KJVOist Cult.