Behind the King James Bible: The Legacy of Byzantium and Erasmus - Cross Bible Timeline

[@MythVisionPodcast]

I'm super impressed with this work brother.

[@cadenelson891]

Right??

[@NazriBuang-w9v]

Lies again? Ice Bear Fighter USD SGD

[@lloydcrooks712]

Excellent video unbiased well researched

[@nicholaspack3358]

Such a helpful video, thank you!

[@highadventure5790]

I'm still looking for a Bible translation that is not so watered down. I find the newer translations quite watered down. I think it's sad. Nevertheless, I'm excited to see what I'm going to find in this channel. So far so good. Thank you Cross Bible!

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

In what way do you feel that newer Bible translations are watered down? Is it an issue with the underlying text? Or is it an issue with specific translation choices? Can you think of specific examples?

[@ADisaporaGathering-dr2qr]

Purchase an interlinear Bible. It’s a 1:1 translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@ADisaporaGathering-dr2qr , if @highadventure5790 is looking for a more literal Bible translation in English (that is not "watered down" by paraphrases, if that's what is meant), the ESV, NASB or LSB are relatively literal translations of the Critical Text. Hyper-literal translations like Young's Literal Translation should probably be avoided in most circumstances. And the same applies to most interlinear Bibles in most scenarios. If the reader is not equipped with knowledge of the Biblical language(s), interlinears can be confusing or misleading. If someone is acquiring a Biblical language and wants to reduce or eliminate dependency on translations, using an interlinear Bible can develop bad reading habits. The format of an interlinear Bible requires adding a single gloss (translation) under each word. And that gloss may or may not be the best choice in a given context. For example, the Greek word ἔθνη can be glossed as "nations" or "gentiles" depending on the context. An interlinear Bible may or may not provide the appropriate range of meanings for a given word or may actually provide an incorrect gloss. So, I would advise a lot of caution to anyone considering using an interlinear or hyper-literal Bible translation. If you are not willing to put in the time to learn Hebrew or Greek, you have to rely, to some extent, on the expertise of qualified, professional translators (who are not simply paraphrasing another translation). Comparing multiple translations and reading footnotes can be helpful, which is what we aim to facilitate on CrossBible.com. We also strive to enable more people to learn the Biblical languages and alleviate their reliance on translations.

[@marklmansfield]

@@CrossBibleOfficial Use the Bible to Interpret itself . For instance ; look up every occurrence of the word wormwood , they context of the other occurrences makes it clear its speaking of apostacy .

[@eustilou1]

Awesome! Very excited.

[@mikeballew8385]

Excellent.

[@Kitz419]

Good stuff my dude. Subscriber #231

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

Great work. Just One correction: You said it correctly that the EOB is a translation of the Patriarchal Text. But the image you showed is of the Orthodox Study Bible which is a publication of the NKJV New Testament (with an original translation of the LXX for the Old Testament).

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Thank you for noting that! I've added a correction mark at the 14:24 mark. I realized this after releasing the video. But you've encouraged me to insert the correction card! So thanks again! I'm glad I've managed to attract such an attentive viewer! If you notice any other errors in any of my other videos, please feel free to point them out. And if you notice any errors on our Timeline of the Bible feature at crossbible.com/timeline, feel free to email [e-mail]

[@haroldwilhelmsen2902]

jesus will deliver you.

[@nannimanfrin8420]

Why can't one take an objective look at what is claimed to be LXX and the legend from which is arose, the Lettter of Aristeas? This is also permanently tied to the question of the Siniaticus, yet another manuscript for which chemical testing has been censored.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Many scholars have objectively examined the claims of the LXX and have concluded that it is likely legendary and unreliable in many details, even though it may have a historical core. But I don't see how this is tied to Codex Sinaiticus, which is dated to the 4th century AD.

[@nannimanfrin8420]

@@CrossBibleOfficial many purported editions of the LXX like Brenton are actually based on the sinaiticus, for which chemical testing has also never been performed to support its fantastic claims to antiquity.

[@Imsaved777]

In layman’s terms, the King James Bible is the most accurate translation in the English language.

[@cadenelson891]

Did you watch the video I just watched. Cross Bible is promoting the idea that there are multiple translations, all being considered more or less accurate based on the varying scholars. That’s what makes Cross Bible so cool and enriching. Also what you’re saying is also just not remotely true in of itself. There are countless scholars who disagree with that claim. King James Onlyists are truly wrong in my opinion. Like God decided 1500 years after the fact that oh I’m gonna make this one “English” version the true word of God. Give me a break😂 What about the 80% of Christian’s who don’t speak English? With all due respect, you’re narrow minded to believe KJB is the only “true” translation. in my opinion.

[@thefellowheirs]

​@@cadenelson891bro you're triggered and misrepresenting him. He said it was the most accurate translation. Based on the manuscripts.

[@cadenelson891]

@@thefellowheirs what? He never said that😂 He said based on what was available in the 17th century it was the best but I hate to break it to you it’s not the 17th century any more😂 To be more specific as to why your wrong King James Onlyists conflate multiple issues. They think that not only is the Textus Receptus (of the Elzevir Bible specifically?) a perfect text-critical reconstruction of the original text, they think the KJV (the 1611 edition specifically) is a perfect translation of that source text, despite the fact that the KJV often revises the Bishops’ Bible, that revised the Geneva Bible and Tyndale, who revised Wycliffe to some extent.

[@thefellowheirs]

@@cadenelson891 if you don't believe God can preserve His word just say it. If God's word is preserved. For English. It'd be found in the kjv. Not the 200 Alexandrian manuscripts

[@cadenelson891]

@@thefellowheirs I LOVE that you just made that accidental admission. You just “believe on faith” KJV is the “preserved” text while the rest isn’t. It’s not based on actual scholarship but just “what you decided you want to believe” THANK YOU for saying what very few KJV onlyists are willing to admit (because they’re disingenuous).

[@treybarnes5549]

I love Gods word…. all of it

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Good to hear! It helps to keep an open mind about different Bible versions. We'll soon have several Bibles available to read on the website. Stay tuned!

[@treybarnes5549]

@@CrossBibleOfficial open minds?

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@treybarnes5549 Yes. Open mindedness can be helpful when evaluating readings from different Bible versions and traditions.

[@treybarnes5549]

@@CrossBibleOfficial sounds suspicious ha ha I actually can’t wait, I am subscribed. I am very skeptical of the critical text, I would love to be convinced otherwise.

[@treybarnes5549]

I generally fine if you keep an open mind, you open yourself up to all kinds of things

[@donrush5311]

Genesis 3:1 KJV Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? It's the devil's business to sow doubt in the minds of people concerning the Word of God.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

The presentation of history and facts is not intended to "sow doubt". But if you believe any incorrect or inaccurate statements were made in the video, please let me know and provide me with the timestamp, so I can add a correction to the description. Thank you.

[@CaribouDataScience]

When you say Kings James are you referring to the complete version or the American version?

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

This video mainly focuses on the Greek text behind various Bible translations that follow the Textus Receptus (TR) and the Byzantine Text. I emphasize the "King James Bible" (Authorized Version), published in England, because it's the most famous and potentially attracts the widest audience. The KJV is often associated with the TR, but it is also significantly influenced by earlier translations like the Bishops' Bible and William Tyndale's work. Regarding the "American version," you might be referring to Noah Webster’s 1833 revision of the KJV or, perhaps, the NKJV, which does get a mention in the video.

[@CaribouDataScience]

​@@CrossBibleOfficial, thanks for you reply.Did the English version King James version include the books of the Apocrypha? What about the American?

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@CaribouDataScience Yes, I believe the early editions of the KJV (1611, 1629, 1638, 1760, 1769) all had the Apocrypha included, if I recall. But Protestant editions in the 19th century don't include deuterocanonical books. If you're asking about Webster's "American" edition in 1833 or the NKJV in 1982, those didn't have the Apocrypha either.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

We'll delve into more of this in the next video. So stay tuned! I can appreciate why someone who considers themselves to be an orthodox Christian (small 'o') might take issue with removing a reading; or relegating it to the footnotes or apparatus). Ultimately, it boils down to what evidence and arguments someone finds convincing, either for reasoned eclecticism or for some other text-critical method. We'll be presenting more of this information in future content.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@CrossBibleOfficial Thanks. I read Burgon and was impressed. Blessings.

[@patogden856]

Thanks for your dissertation. As for me I will stick with the KJV . I believe the information on copyright has a huge effect on how true a bible translation is . In order to make money there has to be a copyright. To get copyright rights there has to be a certain percentage of change / difference . Notice the curse at the very end of Revelations 22:18,19 . I would like to add that God is able to preserve His Word and I believe He has done it for English speaking people in the KJV . To me the fact that a whole committee of scholars worked on it , not just one or two , is also very relevant . Something about there being safety in multiple counsels. “You will know them by their fruit “. I bear the fruit of a completely changed life . From misery to ministry . The bible is it’s own translator and I am very happy that I followed counsel’s given me as a new Christian to stick with the KJV . Given in love. ❤ ps God will judge us on what we know not on what we don’t know .

[@cadenelson891]

The real issue is nested in what you just said. “For English speakers”. Gods word shouldn’t and couldn’t be only for the 20% of Christian’s worldwide who can speak English. English wasn’t even fully formed for more than 1000 years after the first manuscripts. You really mean to tell me God decided only “English speakers” can know Jesus and be saved. That’s just silly bud

[@patogden856]

@@cadenelson891 I am amazed at your misinterpretation of what I said . God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son…….. I can only comment on my own testimony . I am English born . I am incredulous about your comment .

[@cadenelson891]

@@patogden856Oh please do tell how I have misinterpreted you? “And I believe He has done for English speakers” Clearly, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m happy to hear how I’ve misunderstood you. Sounds like you have a bias for English speakers which didn’t even even exist for many many many many generations after Jesus.

[@patogden856]

@@cadenelson891 You can’t be serious ??? Most of my prayer partners are from other countries , thus English is second and in one case fourth language for them . Thus they have their own translations , understandably they struggle with old English KJV . Just saying my own testimony . No need for you to make the judgemental statements that you did . No wonder the world is in such a mess. Don’t bother to reply . Prayers and blessings to you

[@1daycloser2home93]

"So-called" Textus-Receptus? Really? Men&Women wholoved ~THE~LAMB~ Paida greatcost that you&i couldread TheWord 4ourselves inthe commontongue &not haveit be dictated-by the-wolves insheeps clothing.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

It's difficult to pin down which specific text the term "Textus Receptus" should be applied. Erasmus' editions could be considered the forerunner of the "Textus Receptus". That term, unintentionally coined in the Elzevir Bible, is also applied to Stephanus and Beza, and even to Scrivener centuries later. But all of these "Received Texts" are slightly different. So, saying "so-called" can help attenuate the assignment of that designation, since it's an imprecise umbrella term.

[@brentbergeson3277]

Why does everyone call it the original Hebrew when it is not original the Masoretic text was not completed until approximately 1000 years after Christ The Masoretic text is actually the newcomer when it comes to ancient scriptures

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

That’s an interesting point. And it’s the subject of another recent video, which I may re-release soon with some corrections I’ve implemented on the Timeline of the Bible feature. For now, you can watch it here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZ-qfIGHhth_e8Usi=_t2CUHoyuBxuE9m8 There are circumstances where it makes sense to refer to the Masoretic Text as the "original Hebrew," insofar as it represents the "original language" of the Hebrew Bible. The medieval Masoretic Text is the final form of a longstanding textual tradition with a relatively stable consonantal framework going back to the 2nd temple period. The Proto-Masoretic texts likely co-existed alongside the Hebrew sources behind the Greek Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. So, with respect to the Proto-Masoretic Texts, the Masoretic Text is in fact the “original Hebrew,” albeit with the addition of the masorah. However, this is not exactly the “original Hebrew” behind the Old Greek Septuagint. From a text-critical perspective, it’s difficult to nail down the “original Hebrew”.

[@brentbergeson3277]

@@CrossBibleOfficial thanks for your response. I still believe it’s misleading to call it original especially when it’s probable that Moses wrote in the Proto -Hebrew script.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@brentbergeson3277 Do you think it’s just as misleading to refer to the Textus Receptus or the Critical Text as “the original Greek”?

[@brentbergeson3277]

@@CrossBibleOfficial original means the first. There were none before it, so anything that comes after the first is not original.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@brentbergeson3277 That seems like a very intuitive understanding of the term "original". In that sense, strictly speaking, we have no "original" texts - only later copies with textual variants.

[@baronvonfuppster4717]

What a load of tosh

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@baronvonfuppster4717 Thank you for the feedback Mr. Fuppster. If you could point out any specific tosh, it may be helpful. I’m open to adding corrections to the video if there are any factual errors.

[@baronvonfuppster4717]

@CrossBibleOfficial I would but those that persist in error wallow in it. To explain that error is akin to casting pearls before swine.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

@@baronvonfuppster4717, well, I suppose that, without your willingness to cast your pearls before swine, I'm fated to persist and wallow in these alleged errors you're alluding to, without the opportunity to correct them for the record. Thanks anyway for the view and for the engagement. I do appreciate it.

[@michaelwillis4532]

2 Timothy 3:16 the scriptures are written in the inspiration of god,… It’s not the word of any god. The entire book is Greek. Hebrew is Greek,Islam is Greek. Without the Greek Septuagint,there is no Bible. The Bible wasn’t written to be taken literally but the church won’t tell you this. It’s hidden meanings are what’s important,ignore the story and ask yourself what are they trying to tell me?

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Thanks for commenting! 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος...", which is hard to translate. It means "all scripture (writing) is 'theopneustos' (God-breathed)". The Hebrew Bible is preserved in Hebrew and in Greek translation, alongside some original Greek writings in some canons. Without the Greek Septuagint, there is the Masoretic Text. You can learn more about that in this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZ-qfIGHhth_e8Usi=LsH63R2Hyyl8QW4T

[@marklmansfield]

There are some who believe that Noah spoke a perfect form of Hebrew ; the Language God originally gave to the first Man Adam and all Languages descended from a corruption of it , some more some less . So that Greek actually descended from Hebrew and there is circumstantial evidence to support the claim : but since I wasn't there ; I won't speculate one way or the other 😎

[@michaelwillis4532]

@@marklmansfield Hebrew language is Greek. Hebrew people didn’t exist before 400 bc. They were created when the Greek and the Persian empire got together and created a new race,Hebrew. Moses never existed. Jesus never existed. Everything we’ve been told is a lie.

[@stevebeary4988]

The worst bible ever produced.

[@CrossBibleOfficial]

Are you referring to Erasmus' 1516 edition? :)