TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is generating more heat than: .45 v. 9mm; Weaver v. Isosceles; 1911 v. Glock.; . . .

Why don’t we just call it a day on this one folks?

Happy New Year,
Chas.

(':banghead:') Thanks!

"carlson1" wrote
1. The oldest form of the Bible discovered to date are the 92 papyra, dated 180AD and 220AD and 85% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 15% agree with the other Bible versions.
2. Of the 5,200 Greek manuscripts that exist today, 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
3. Of all the Onicals (which is text written in block capital letters), 97% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 3% agree with the other Bible versions.
4. Of all the 2,000 Cursives (text written later in history when people began to write in long-hand), 99% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 1% agree with the other Bible versions.
5. Of all the 2,000 Lexicons, 100% of the text agrees word-for-word with the 1611 King James Bible. Only 0% agree with the other Bible versions.

The problem with such a statement is that "text agreement" is a subjective art of the translator. While one might agree, another might render somewhat differently.

I am reminded of a time years ago when I encountered a very prim and proper but somewhat mean-spirited lady in my church. She refused to accept that any translation other than KJV was acceptable for public reading. After giving me a tongue -lashing for suggesting a different study Bible, I asked her to stand and read aloud to the group 1 Kings 16: 11. After her initial embarassment, she acknowledged that there might be some merit in other translations.

On the other hand, my saintly grandmother went to her grave believing that KJV was the only real Bible.........

That said, thats my last comment on this thread. Besides being off-topic, it's probably not a good idea to let two old preachers get started on a Biblical/historical discussion...........

carlson1 wrote:I will accept what Jesus said in Matthew 12 (whale) from the KJV which was translated from the Textus Receptus which was not corrupted as Wescott and Hyott.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm

Not to be argumentative (nor off topic) but out of curiosity, why accept as absolute the "Textus Receptus" which is produced over fourteen centuries after the events of the New Testament? The "received text" was not produced until the advent of mechanical printing in the 15th century.

What consideration should be given to earlier texts, say the Vulgate or earlier Greek texts? Just curious..........