Validity of Modern New Testament

[LovelyMind]

As I was scrolling through my Facebook feed a photo caught my eye. A friend posted a photo from a prominent Atheist group. The post claims that the King James Version of the New Testament is nothing more than a message compiled by 8 guys just trying to please the king. They claim that these 8 men did not even use the only manuscripts available.

Most people know that the original manuscripts were destroyed, I'm not familiar with how the texts came to be since then. Everything that I know, I have learned from my Christian upbringing/relationship with Christ and recently studying a bit of apologetics as a pastime.

Someone please help me refute the claim that the New Testament has no possibility of being the Word of God. I would also like to know the truth of how the English version came to be.

Here is what the post said:

"The King James  Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611by 8 members of the Church of England. There were (and still are) no original text to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike. The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve. so, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a good 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. That's not faith. That's insanity." - United Atheists of America

[Zeta_Metroid]

he King James  Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611by 8 members…

Unsurprisingly, they get their very first, basic facts wrong. There were more than 40 scholars involved with producing the KJV.

There were (and still are) no original text to translate.

…And? That’s the case for literally every document from the period and before. (Except for personal letters we might happen to dig up). Its not really a big deal, textual cricicism – especially with something with such a very rich and large manuscript tradition as the Bible – can be employed to rather easily tell what the original text most likely said.

The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died.

Blatantly, outrageously false. Out oldest New Testament manuscript, the St. John Fragment is, like http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ says, from the “first half of the second century”.

The last Apostle to die was John, around 100 AD. So that manuscript is anywhere from being contemporary with John to being written about fifty years after his death. Certainly not “hundreds of years”!

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

Again, not correct. Read the original introduction to the KJV here: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php

They say: “If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.”

so, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a good edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations

These people are putting a very strange emphasis on the KJV. Are they not aware that there’s no shortage of other translations? The New International Version, Young’s Literal Translation, the Lexham English Bible, the New Living Translation, the RSV, etc. The list goes on and on and on and on.

So all in all, this is typical Facebook status garbage. I’d definitely post a refutation there and put them back in their place!

[Maxximiliann]

As I was scrolling through my Facebook feed a photo caught my eye. A friend posted a photo from a prominent Atheist group. The post claims that the King James Version of the New Testament is nothing more than a message compiled by 8 guys just trying to please the king. They claim that these 8 men did not even use the only manuscripts available.

Most people know that the original manuscripts were destroyed, I'm not familiar with how the texts came to be since then. Everything that I know, I have learned from my Christian upbringing/relationship with Christ and recently studying a bit of apologetics as a pastime.

Someone please help me refute the claim that the New Testament has no possibility of being the Word of God. I would also like to know the truth of how the English version came to be.

Here is what the post said:

"The King James  Version of the New Testament was completed in 1611by 8 members of the Church of England. There were (and still are) no original text to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike. The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve. so, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a good 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. That's not faith. That's insanity." - United Atheists of America

I. The evidence for the Christian Greek Scriptures being of divine origin is the same as that for the rest of the Bible.

II. As far as the first English translation of the Bible is concerned, we can thank John Wycliffe for that. Here's a brief history of his efforts.