Question: How accurate is the information on this graphic?

[Ziploc Surprise]

I have a question, how accurate is the information on this graphic? http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394...6235_n.jpg

[Shell B]

Sounds legit.

[Jackalope]

I have a question, how accurate is the information on this graphic? http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394...6235_n.jpg

I'll note that a lot of believers that I've known avoid the KJV for reasons stated in that image. However, some of the criticisms apply to all translations.

[Cyberman]

The two urls at the bottom of the graphic link to the following articles:

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen (a papyrologist and ancient historian specializing in Greek documentary texts from Hellenistic and Roman Egypt)

A Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr Laurence M Vance (author, publisher, lecturer, freelance writer, editor of the Classic Reprints series, and director of the Francis Wayland Institute)

They might shed some light.

[Ziploc Surprise]

I have a question, how accurate is the information on this graphic? http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394...6235_n.jpg

I'll note that a lot of believers that I've known avoid the KJV for reasons stated in that image. However, some of the criticisms apply to all translations.

Decades ago people used to say that the KJV was the most accurate translation. Usually these were old timers who were resistant to the modern world (of which there were a lot of these type of people especially in certain denominations like the Southern Baptists). They made up a lot of bullshit reasons why that translation was more accurate. Most of it was bullshit so I won't bother to repeat it. My argument at the time (which went mostly ignored like all my other arguments) was that so much was lost in one's own personal translation from King James English to modern English that it was better to have a modern translation.

On a similar note. Is the KJV translation really the form of English used in King James's time or has the English been modernized somewhat? I heard somewhere (but have not been able to verify) that this was the case but I don't know.

[Shell B]

They forgot to mention that the KJV is largely based on translations by a man that they burnt alive for translating the Bible from Latin.

Edited: Oh, sorry. They strangled him before burning him.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I have a question, how accurate is the information on this graphic? http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394...6235_n.jpg

It's actually a LOT worse than that.

The full Wiki article linked below is worth reading,but the book is better..

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. The book, which made it to the New York Times Best Seller list, is available in hardcover and paperback.[2]

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism). Ehrman contends that certain widely-held Christian beliefs, such about the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with these later alterations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus

[Rev. Rye]

I'll look at it paragraph by paragraph. Forgive me if my use of abbreviations may seem excessive. I don't like to manually transcribe shit.

The KJV of the NT was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the C of E.

Actually, there were 47 scholars divided into 6 committees, each committee taking down a section of the Bible. A relatively minor quibble.

There were (And still are) no orginal texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down centuries after the last apostle died.

Well, the oldest verified manuscript of the NT, P52, is dated to around 125 AD. It's not plausible that they would have been around to write that. If we go to the most complete version of the NT, the date would most likely be later.

There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, and no two are alike.

True. The longer the passages are, the more often they deviate. Of course, if one counts only the complete ones, there's fewer.

The king James translators used none of these anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve.

Well, to be fair, most of these manuscripts weren't available, and Erasmus got a lot of flak for publishing his Textus Receptus version of the Bible almost a century earlier. And besides, it was to be expected that they'd have to deal with the King in their work; it was his church they were doing the Bible for! No wonder they were biased in their translation.

So, 21st century Christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

This is essentially accurate. You may need to replace the number of the centuries to fit the Christian's favorite Bible version, but otherwise, this is most certainly true, as Luther would say.

That's not faith, it is insanity.

Is there really much of a difference.

[Drich]

I have a question, how accurate is the information on this graphic? http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394...6235_n.jpg

since we are posting links rather than showing actual documentation or any real evidence and are allowing others to do all of our thinking for us:
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

[Shell B]

So, you're just going to condescend about the methods and then carry on in the same fashion. Well played, Drich.