Image
image
image
image


This Christian Journey:

 

The Word Of God Video Bible Studies

Questions and Answers

Q & A - March 22, 2013

I watched your video regarding the KJV and its origins.  While you are partially correct, the KJV may not be the most accurate.  In fact, the historical documents from the committee responsible for the version reveal how little translating was actually done.  Nearly 95% of the KJV is identical to the Geneva Bible. Much of the rest was derived from other sources that were extent at the time.   

As an aside, if the KJV is the touchstone of accuracy, what do we tell those who read the Scriptures in Spanish, Japanese, Hebrew or even Tagalog.  

The New Testaments I distribute in Spanish for the Gideons have translation dates in 1500s and 1602, well before the KJV. 

 Effective this year, the Modern English Version of the New Testament distributed by the Gideons will be the English Standard Version. 

While, admittedly, some Scriptures sound better in Shakespearean English, it may be a stretch to proclaim that the  Shakespearean English used at the time of the KJV origination makes it a more accurate translation.  It merely makes it another version of an already well used and circulated Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible.  If I am not mistaken, it was the Geneva Bible that was in use by the Pilgrims during their sojourn in Holland before they came to Plymouth.  I suspect, also, that it was in use in Jamestown colony, as well.

My Answer

In my video I never mentioned the KJ bible translator’s or their method.  I compared directly to ancient Greek Manuscripts.  I have studied manuscripts at Master and Doctorate levels and written extensive papers on this subject.  There is a wide variety of misconceptions about what the KJ bible translator’s used.  In fact they used existing Greek manuscripts and the Textus Recptus in their translation and worked from the original languages.   This fact is supported when the KJ Bible is compared to existing ancient Manuscripts and the level of agreement is discovered, they fully agree.

I’m not sure which video you watched, or if you watched all three videos, but I focus my evidence  upon actual ancient Greek texts, one dating to the 5th century and called an eclectic text (Mss 02), any of which could be used instead of the Textus Receptus because they all agree with one another.  When it comes to your Modern Translations, that drop more than 40 verses from the Bible and multitudes of phrases, like those in the Lord’s Prayer, there is only one ancient manuscript that supports such abuses and it is tucked away in the Vatican Library and all that can be viewed of this manuscript is what the Vatican calls a Pseudo Facsimile, Pseudo meaning false or course.  There is no body of  historical or textual support for the NA27 or any of those translations that use it as their source.  Modern Scholarship in continuing to rewrite the Bible based on what they claim to be better Greek Manuscripts forwards a deception that has been handed down from generation to generation by a sincere but wrong  approached to scholarship. 

My whole argument and point is simply that God promised to keep His Word perfect and pure and He has.  I trust God first.  My approach has the support of thousands of Greek manuscripts, fragments, and lectionaries.  The historical and textual support for these ancient Greek manuscripts and the Textus Receptus that so accurately represents them is overwhelming.  So much so that even if a person did not use the Textus Receptus any one of these ancient manuscripts could be used stand alone to support the King James rendering of the Biblical Text in English.  In my videos I use somewhere around nine of these ancient manuscripts to prove the body of support for the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, and I am only limited to these manuscripts by time, I had prepared over thirteen manuscripts to support my position, and could have prepared thousands given enough time.  How many Ancient Greek manuscripts can you produce to support your rendering of the Bibilcal text?  I would love to examine them with you, diligently comparing them to the text you seem to support to discover the changes and departures. 

You mention translations to other languages.  These translations are in jeopardy as well.  If the translators are using the NA27 as their source text then they are NOT using the Biblical text at all, for there is only one ancient manuscript that supports the many changes made in this fabricated manuscript; the Vaticanus, a Pseudo Facsimile.  These translators ought to be using the Word of God, the Textus Recptus, or any of the 57 complete New Testament Greek manuscripts available to us to day.  I accessed most of the manuscripts I used online, photographs are available and can be diligently studied for free, as I have done.  These manuscripts, through their agreement and correlation reveal the Biblical Text to us without any doubt.  However, modern scholarship and translators like Wycliff Bible Translators and the American Bible Society insist on using the NA27 which wrests the Word of God, changes the Bible, and conveys a book they claim Is the Word of God but is not.  I am all for translating the Word of God into as many other languages as possible, but I am fully against conveying something called the Word of God that is based on a corruption of the Word of God as anything translated form the NA27 is and will be; because anything translated from a corruption can only be a corruption. 

If find it interesting that you claim the Gideons distribute Spanish translations that date to the 1500’s and 1602.  I am pretty sure the Gideons were not around at those early dates.  If those translations make the verse omissions present in these modern translations and the NA27 then that would be undeniable evidence of a far later translation date, because before the mid to late 1800’s, if any of the ancient manuscripts were used or the Textus Receptus were used to translate these Bibles then those verses and phrases would all be present.  The NA27 or the earlier Westcott and Hort Greek text did not exist before these two men and their deceptive work.  Prior to their wresting of the scriptures Bible texts would of necessity have agreed with the text that would have resulted from any of these ancient manuscripts and would largely agree with the text of the King James Bible.  So let’s sit down and examine these manuscripts and Bibles and see what they are.  Of course, I know nothing about Spanish, but a Google translator and the simple examination of a few verse of scripture would answer this question rather quickly. 

My ultimate point is simply this, we have the Ancient Greek Manuscripts available in photographs for anyone to examine who is willing to do the work; I did this work.  Many of them are available for free online, as I demonstrated in my videos.  The best way to settle this debate is to study them, and see what they actually say.  Do they support modern translations?  Or do they support the King James rendering of the Biblical Text?  Are those verses and phrases present or missing?   I have proven from these ancient manuscripts, dating all the way back to the 5th century, that the King James Bible is accurate and modern translations drop things out of the Bible, modern translations wrest or pervert the Scriptures and should NOT be used or trusted.  

Thus I fully disagree with you based on the diligent study of the Word of God in its existing ancient Greek manuscripts.

 In Christ, Until He Comes, Perhaps Today . . .

Walter D. Huyck Jr.

Pastor, D. Min.

CrossRoads Baptist Church

www.thischristianjourney.com

www.crbcwin.org

 

 

 

 



image
image