TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > The Coliseum > One on One
Reload this Page Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words? One on one discussion.
One on One One on One battles can be set-up by contacting an admin (Knight, Turbo or Lucky).

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words? One on one discussion. - April 17th, 2008, 09:44 PM

Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.

I believe the doctrine of the existence of an inspired and inerrant Bible is the number one critical issue facing the church today. The simple fact is most Christians today do NOT believe The Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.

This statement may seem shocking at first, and many pastors and Christians will give the knee-jerk reaction saying that they do believe the Bible IS the infallible word of God. However, upon further examimation, it will soon be discovered that when they speak of an inerrant Bible, they are not referring to something that actually exists anywhere on this earth. They are talking about a mystical Bible that exists only in their imaginations; and each person's particular version differs from all the others.

God said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

The Lord Jesus Christ also stated in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

The apostle Paul wrote concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST..." 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The number of professing Christians who do not believe in a "hold it in your hands and read" type of inspired Bible has steadily increased over the years since the flood of multiple-choice, conflicting and contradictory modern bible versions began to appear about 100 years ago.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders. The irony is that these same men are part of the problem they lament. Each of these men has been guilty of endorsing modern bible versions.

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."


George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Of the Baptists surveyed 57 percent said they believed that works are necessary in order to be saved, 45 percent believed Jesus was not sinless, 44 percent did not believe that the Bible is totally accurate, and 66 percent did not believe Satan to be a real being. Barna said, "The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy."

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.


The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally: 58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"; 45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

"Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that: 41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches."

"Seminary students, future pastors and leaders in the church, show very little support for the inerrancy of the Bible position. What does that foretell about the future of the church? Undoubtedly, just as the poll results show in the 1996 - 2001 time frame, THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BELIEVING THE BIBLE IS INERRANT WILL DROP."

No Absolute Truth

The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

A popular New Age religious site that endorses all religions of the world is called Religious Tolerance. Org. http://www.religioustolerance.org

This site has some interesting comments regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. They ask: Does inerrancy really matter?

"From one standpoint, this doctrine is of great importance, because it determines, at a very fundamental level, how Christians approach Scripture."

"To most conservative theologians Biblical inerrancy and inspiration are fundamental doctrines. Unless the entire Bible is considered to be the authoritative word of God, then the whole foundation of their religious belief crumbles. If the Bible contains some errors, then conservative Christians feel that they would have no firm basis on which to base their doctrines, beliefs, morality and practices. The books of the Bible must be either inerrant, or be devoid of authority."

They continue: "To most liberal theologians, the Bible is not inerrant. They believe that its books were obviously written and edited by human authors: with limited scientific knowledge, who promoted their own specific belief systems, who attributed statements to God that are immoral by today's standards, who freely incorporated material from neighboring Pagan cultures, who freely disagreed with other Biblical authors." (Religious Tolerance.org)

What I personally found of great interest is the following comment in the same article. The people at Religious Tolerance noted: "Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians CONSIDER A PARTICULAR ENGLISH TRANSLATION TO BE INERRANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE AMONG LAY MEMBERS IN THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION. But most conservatives believe that inerrancy only applies to the original, autograph copies of the various books of the Bible. None of the latter have survived to the present day. We only have access to a variety of manuscripts which are copies of copies of copies...An unknown number of errors are induced due to Accidental copying errors by ancient scribes or intentional changes and insertions into the text, made in order to match developing theology." (Religious Tolerance.org)

Most Christians who do not believe the King James Bible or any other version are now the inerrant, infallible, complete and pure words of God, define Inerrancy in the following manner: “When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences.” (P. D. Feinberg, s.v. “inerrancy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Inerrancy & the autographa.)

The usual tap dance performed by those who deny any Bible or any text in any language is now the inerrant, complete and infallible words of God is typified by the following quote: "Inerrancy applies to the autographa, not to copies or translations of Scripture. This qualification is made because we realize that errors have crept into the text during the transmission process. It is not an appeal to a “Bible which no one has ever seen or can see.” Such a charge fails to take into account the nature of textual criticism and the very high degree of certainty we possess concerning the original text of Scripture."

Well, this may sound very pious and good, but the undeniable fact is that this Christian scholar is talking about "a Bible no one has seen or can see".

As for this gentleman's "nature of textual criticism" is concerned, this so called "science" is a giant fraud and a pathetic joke played on the unsuspecting saints who might think these men actually know what they are doing. I have posted a series on the "science of textual criticism" that reveals the true nature of this hocus-pocus methodology of determining what God really said. You can see all parts of this study, starting with: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Here are some facts taken directly from the Holy Bible. You do not need to be a scholar or seminary student to get a grasp of what the Bible says about itself. You either believe God or you don't.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself. The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of THE BOOK it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Psalm 40:7-8

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

See article Can a Translation Be Inspired? http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.


#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.

See my article that shows what these two false witnesses actually say:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/...04/12/694.aspx

For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See:

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense16...cposition.html

In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney



   
  (#2) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 18th, 2008, 12:38 PM

Greetings!

I'd like to thank TOL and Will Kinney for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.

I have one request: That we make arguments in this space, and not make arguments by "weblink", referring to other writings, even if our own, to make arguments for us. Citing another source as evidence is, of course, OK if the relevant text is quoted, but to point an opponent to a series of lengthy is simply not in the spirit of debate.

Since Mr. Kinney needs to flesh out his arguments further to present a case for inspiration and inerrnancy, I will just make an opening statement, here.

I'd like to begin by saying that the issues with what the American Church believes about the bible and the nature of the text is one that teachers everywhere need to begin to resolve. Clearly a lot of education is needed in this regard.

However, we also need to deal in truth when representing God's word, not to say that Mr. Kinney is lying, because I do believe He sincerely believes his position to be the truth. However, given the evidence about the KJV and the Greek manuscript that underlies the KJV, we're going to find more than enough reason for doubt with respect to Mr. Kinney's beliefs about the KJV.

I expect a lot of "comparison" to take place, the claim that the KJV is better than other English translations. However, we should keep in mind that "better than" doesn't represent inerrancy.

I also expect a lot of presupposition, reading the text of Scripture where God promises to preserve His Word, and then the presupposition that the KJV is the fulfillment of this promise. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promised text would be in English.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all, nor do I see where Scripture promises that seeking God's preserved word would be easy. Even the Masoretic Text, best represented in the Leningrad Codex, has been preserved through the ben Asher dynasty, a family dedicated to the academic pursuit of preserving the Old Testament.

So, I believe what we will see, in the end, is that the KJV, while a good translation, clearly has problems within its pages, and ultimately is not the preserved and inerrant text that Mr. Kinney claims that it is.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#3) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible - April 18th, 2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
Greetings!

I'd like to thank TOL and Will Kinney for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.

I have one request: That we make arguments in this space, and not make arguments by "weblink", referring to other writings, even if our own, to make arguments for us. Citing another source as evidence is, of course, OK if the relevant text is quoted, but to point an opponent to a series of lengthy is simply not in the spirit of debate.
Hi Muz. Thanks for participating in this vital discussion. I will try to refrain from posting lengthy articles from now on, but I wanted to provide enough information to back up the examples I gave as to why I and many others believe the King James Bible to be the complete and inerrant words of God.

Quote:
Since Mr. Kinney needs to flesh out his arguments further to present a case for inspiration and inerrnancy, I will just make an opening statement, here.
I have no idea what you mean by "flesh out" (interesting term;-). I have presented a whole series of Bible verses that teach God would preserve His words; heaven and earth would pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken. I believe I can successfully maintain the position that IF the King James Bible is not the complete and 100% true Bible of God, then no such book exists on this earth. The latter is what you yourself believe, isn't it Muz?

Quote:
I'd like to begin by saying that the issues with what the American Church believes about the bible and the nature of the text is one that teachers everywhere need to begin to resolve. Clearly a lot of education is needed in this regard.

However, we also need to deal in truth when representing God's word, not to say that Mr. Kinney is lying, because I do believe He sincerely believes his position to be the truth. However, given the evidence about the KJV and the Greek manuscript that underlies the KJV, we're going to find more than enough reason for doubt with respect to Mr. Kinney's beliefs about the KJV.

I expect a lot of "comparison" to take place, the claim that the KJV is better than other English translations. However, we should keep in mind that "better than" doesn't represent inerrancy.

I also expect a lot of presupposition, reading the text of Scripture where God promises to preserve His Word, and then the presupposition that the KJV is the fulfillment of this promise. I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promised text would be in English.

Furthermore, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all, nor do I see where Scripture promises that seeking God's preserved word would be easy. Even the Masoretic Text, best represented in the Leningrad Codex, has been preserved through the ben Asher dynasty, a family dedicated to the academic pursuit of preserving the Old Testament.

So, I believe what we will see, in the end, is that the KJV, while a good translation, clearly has problems within its pages, and ultimately is not the preserved and inerrant text that Mr. Kinney claims that it is.

Muz
I look forward to examining the very important topic in the near future with you. I would like to clarify what I perceive as lacking in your response so far. You mention that you do not "see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all". May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.

The only education I see coming from todays' seminaries is that all Hebrew and all Greek texts have been corrupted and that it is impossible to put the whole puzzle back together again. The situation we now have from your side of things is the Every Man For Himself Multiple-Choice Versionism, with no agreement as to which texts should be used nor how they should be translated.

It seems to me the multi-versionist, "originals only" side of things views God much like the Deists of old - He started things off and then left the scene to chance and the fickle will of man.

I suspect, dear Muz, that your tactics will be very similar to those of James White. He himself has no fixed text and no complete and inerrant Bible to offer anyone, and so he ends up in one vain attempt after another to pick holes the the Book of books - the Authorized King James Bible.

If this then is your tactic as well, I would only ask that you limit your laundry lists to a very few items at a time. I am a high school Spanish teacher by trade and it would be hard for me to address more than a few examples of what you think are "problems".

In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?

Thank you.

Accepted in the Beloved - Eph. 1:6

Will Kinney



   
  (#4) Old
Knight Knight is offline
You talkin' to me?
 Knight's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Knight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peersKnight is well respected by his peers
Exclamation April 19th, 2008, 12:44 PM

FYI: I opened up a companion thread for this debate so that those interested could discuss the debate. The companion thread is located here.





DOWNLOAD the FREE TOL App available for iPhone, iPad, and Android.


Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter

TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

-----------
Bibles for sale | Logos Bible Software 15% Off
   
  (#5) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 21st, 2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
I have no idea what you mean by "flesh out" (interesting term;-). I have presented a whole series of Bible verses that teach God would preserve His words; heaven and earth would pass away but not His words, and the Scripture cannot be broken. I believe I can successfully maintain the position that IF the King James Bible is not the complete and 100% true Bible of God, then no such book exists on this earth. The latter is what you yourself believe, isn't it Muz?
Not at all. I believe God has preserved His word for us. However, I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God promises that His word would be preserved in a single translation of the bible. This is your task.

Quote:
I look forward to examining the very important topic in the near future with you. I would like to clarify what I perceive as lacking in your response so far. You mention that you do not "see anywhere in Scripture where the promise of preservation will be a translation at all". May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.

My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.

Quote:
The only education I see coming from todays' seminaries is that all Hebrew and all Greek texts have been corrupted and that it is impossible to put the whole puzzle back together again. The situation we now have from your side of things is the Every Man For Himself Multiple-Choice Versionism, with no agreement as to which texts should be used nor how they should be translated.
I think you're presenting an oversimplified view of what seminaries teach. For the Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex is considered the preserved Hebrew text. Among conservative scholars, this is fairly universally held. So, there's the OT.

The New Testament is not quite as simple, and yet I can say the same things about the ongoing work of scholars about the current text as you can about the KJV. There is nothing within Scripture that points us uniquely to the KJV as God's inerrant word.

Quote:
It seems to me the multi-versionist, "originals only" side of things views God much like the Deists of old - He started things off and then left the scene to chance and the fickle will of man.
Again, I believe that's an oversimplification of that view. However, from the text of Scripture, we can see that the original text is the only text that we can say was created "as the Holy Spirit carried them along." (2 Peter 1:16-21)

That's not to say that God hasn't been at work preserving His word through the voluminous copies of Scripture, none of which are inerrant in and of themselves, but in which God's word is preserved.

Quote:
I suspect, dear Muz, that your tactics will be very similar to those of James White. He himself has no fixed text and no complete and inerrant Bible to offer anyone, and so he ends up in one vain attempt after another to pick holes the the Book of books - the Authorized King James Bible.
Well, let's pick up the KJV and have a look, then.

Quote:
If this then is your tactic as well, I would only ask that you limit your laundry lists to a very few items at a time. I am a high school Spanish teacher by trade and it would be hard for me to address more than a few examples of what you think are "problems".
Then I will do my best to stick to the important ones.

Quote:
In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?
Will Kinney
Well, this is the typical debate tactic, trying to turn the debate around, and rather than building a case for the KJV, as the proposal suggests, the goalposts are shifted, an artificial standard established, and the onus is placed upon the negative to prove otherwise. However. in the spirit of debate, Mr. Kinney will need to make his case.

However, since he presented a case in the opening (I wanted to make sure he didn't have more to say), let's examine the 6 points:

Quote:
#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

See my two articles on how the modern versions all reject the Hebrew texts.
This is quite interesting, actually. For the last few hundred years, scholarship has taken great interest in the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament, dating from around 1010AD. It is a Masoretic text, and considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church.

Recently, my class undertook doing some scribal comparisons of a piece of a Torah Scroll with the Leningrad Codex, the Qumran material, the Samaritan Pentetuch, the London Polyglot, and the BHS. Now, all but the last of those are various scribal traditions. The last is scholarship's attempt to create a modern, published text, comparable to the Greek New Testament. Interestingly enough, the Torah scroll. the Leningrad Codex, and the BHS were virtually identical. The was no significant difference between the three.

And modern translations are based upon the BHS.

So, if we want to speak directly of the preserved word of God in the original, I would point you directly to the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament. There is a facsimile copy of that text is my local library, and I can put that into the hands of any Christian, and it is available for purchase.

Why does scholarship consider this text to be preserved? Well, there are a lot of reasons, most are too long to discuss, here. However, the short answer is that Jewish scribes were committed to the exact reproduction of text, as they considered it the inspired Word of God, they used all kinds of means and methods to preserve the text, and from what we know of the "scribal dynasty" that produced the Leningrad Codex, they were just as committed as those who came before.

If the KJV deviates from the Leningrad Codex, upon which modern translations are based, then there is no basis from your own logic, why we couldn't say that the Leningrad Codex, rather than the KJV, is the inspired, preserved text.

Quote:
#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
Notice that this is asserted, but not demonstrated, and it is simply presumed that Isaiah 34:16 is referring to the KJV, and not, say, the Torah scrolls of Isaiah's day.

(This is one of the places I was thinking of when I said that things needed to be "fleshed out."

Quote:
#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.
Again, this is assertion without proof. We're supposed to jump into the presupposition without any evidence.

Quote:
#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5
You know, that's interesting, because one of the significant errors of the KJV (and this is confirmed by other "majority text" texts actually demotes Christ from being God. In John 1:18, the KJV says:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
And based upon the structure of John 1:1-18, verse 18 should reflect verses 1-3, where the "Word was God." But in the KJV, John's work is destroyed by a textual variant not picked up by Erasmus when creating the TR, and apparently the KJV translators missed the Holy Spirit's inspiration when translating this verse.

Quote:
In contrast, all the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV contain proveable and serious doctrinal errors. See my article on No Doctrines Are Changed?:
Well, the KJV makes an error on an important verse regarding trinitarian doctrine, so I'd be careful throwing stones when you live in a glass house.

Quote:
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.
As shown above, the KJV debases Christ in reducing Him from being God in John 1:18.

Quote:
"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.
This is no different than the slight the KJV places against Christ in John 1:18, except that the original text reads as the NASB and ESV do, rather than the KJV.

Quote:
#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version.
This is simply incorrect. With respect to the Wescott and Hort New Testament, this may have been true. However, their textual selection has been rejected for almost 100 years now, based upon recent findings of older texts in various discoveries around the world since 1900.

Modern scholars value the Byzantine text far more than Wescott and Hort did, and your modern translations are based upon a far more balanced (and accurate) view of all the texts. If anyone wishes to study this further, Bruce Metzger is the present "alpha geek" of the textual criticism world.


Quote:
If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.
Well, each translations has its own focus. There are a variety of kinds of translations, and it is important to understand each.

The KJV, ESV, and NASB are called "formal translations", in that they read the text, and remain as literally as possible, accounting for the differences in Lexical and Grammatical form between English and the original language. Their motto is "as literal as possible, as free as necessary."

The NIV (and I think the NCV) are called "dynamic equivalence." This means that they translate literally when a literal translation brings out the meaning of the text well, but interpret parts of the text that they translators feel that a literal translation doesn't bring out the meaning properly. One example is that the NIV translates "flesh" as "sinful nature" in Romans, based upon Romans 7:5. I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation in all cases, but if you read the introduction to the NIV, they describe what they've done.

The Message paraphrase, the NLT, and many other versions represent themselves as interpretations. They are rarely literal, and seek to bring meaning, rather than literal translations.


Now, I want everyone to notice that we're back into "comparison" mode, as though the best text from the limited list the Mr. Kinney has chosen must be the inspired Word of God. However, unless Mr. Kinney is willing to do this with every translation of the bible that has ever existed, it would be difficult to make this case, and even if this happened, we'd only conclude that the KJV is the best translation, not that it was inspired.

Quote:
I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete.
First and foremost, neither the TR nor the Byzantine texts are the "Traditional Greek Text." The Byzantine Text Type is one of five groupings of manuscripts made by various groups of people. The Byzantine (as one might guess) is based in the Eastern Church. The groups labeled "aleph" and "Bet" were the Roman Church's preservation. Sinaticus comes from a Sinai tradition. There is also the Western Text Type, which comes from a variety of western sources.

Each has its strengths and weaknesses. The "Byzantine text" is also called the "Majority text", due to the volume of copies made in this type. There are literally thousands of copies of this type around the world, although most of them are very late copies.

What's interesting is that something happened around 400AD (what, we don't know), but there are very few copies of Scripture that survived from before this date from any tradition. It appears that the church was having problems with poor copies of manuscripts running around, and they wanted to coalesce and come up with an authoritative copy, and it is from this apparent work that all traditions (including the one the KJV is based in) come from. From before 400AD, all we have are small fragments, although one may be dated as early as 130AD, from the book of John.

So, that's enough textual history for now. But I think we can see that the Church definitely had a hand in making textual decisions regarding the original as early as 400AD. (It's interesting to note that the canon of Scripture was established in 325AD, and that might explain the need to consolidate texts.)

So, let's get into the KJV, a bit.

The KJV is based upon a Greek Text assembled by a man named "Erasmus", which was later dubbed "the Textus Receptus" by a marketer trying to pump up sales around 1625.

However, Erasmus' assembly of this Greek Text is somewhat suspect. While the "majority text" contains literally thousands of manuscripts, Erasmus only used about a dozen individual manuscripts dating either from the 12th or 15th century. These are considered very late manuscripts, and, as would be common sense, the more times a manuscript has been copied, the greater the chance for errors.

Modern translators consider literally hundreds (sometimes thousands) of manuscripts, giving consideration to a variety of criterion to discover the original.

But back to our story of Erasmus.

Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.

(This is an online source for everyone to read: http://www.theopedia.com/Erasmus)


Now, please don't misunderstand me. The KJV is a good translation of the bible. I have one and use it, along with several other translations. I also have taken the time to learn to read the original language.

However, based upon the history of the KJV, and the obvious errors that we can find within it, we simply cannot conclude that the KJV is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. It is a translation, similar to other formal translations.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#6) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible - April 21st, 2008, 08:36 PM

Hi Muz. Thanks for getting back to us with another response. Hopefully God will be pleased to use these studies of His precious words to open more eyes to the wondrous things out of His law.



brandplucked
Quote:
May I also point out that it is undoubtedly also your position that there is no such thing as an inspired, preserved, complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, including the ever elusive and unidentified Hebrew and Greek original languages.
Quote:
Muz - “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.”
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.


Quote:
There is nothing within Scripture that points us uniquely to the KJV as God's inerrant word.
Nor is there anything within Scripture that tells us the Hebrew nor the Greek, nor a multitude of conflicting partial manuscripts and scraps of papyri, nor the NASB, NIV, ESV,NKJV or NET version would be God’s inerrant word either. You talk about “God’s inerrant word”, yet you do not have it. Can’t you see the inconsistency of such a position? Professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a sign of mature spiritual growth.


Quote:
That's not to say that God hasn't been at work preserving His word through the voluminous copies of Scripture, none of which are inerrant in and of themselves, but in which God's word is preserved.
Muz, you have probably heard this before but your statement is much like saying “God’s words are preserved in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with many words that are not the right ones, and they're all out of order, but Hey, there in there somewhere!”

Let me ask you this, Muz. Do you personally believe God has preserved His words? If so, which verses would you use to support such a belief?


My Previous question to you: In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?


Quote:
Well, this is the typical debate tactic, trying to turn the debate around, and rather than building a case for the KJV, as the proposal suggests, the goalposts are shifted, an artificial standard established, and the onus is placed upon the negative to prove otherwise. However. in the spirit of debate, Mr. Kinney will need to make his case.
Muz, rather than turning the debate around and shifting goalposts, this vital question is directly related to our ongoing discussion. You have placed yourself in the position of measuring the King James Bible and pronouncing it wanting and deficient. So it is only a reasonable and logical question for me to ask you. By what standard are you sitting in judgment on the Book God has seen fit to use so mightily in history and the only one anyone today actually believes IS the complete and inerrant, preserved words of the living God.

As it turns out, it seems your measuring stick consists of two elements: #1. the non-existent and never seen by you “originals”, and #2. your own mind and present understanding, which by the way, differs from everybody else’s.


For the sake of relative brevity I would like to address the two main points you bring up in the remainder of your response, if you don’t mind. You talk about the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament, and several of your points had to do with John 1:18.


Quote:
For the last few hundred years, scholarship has taken great interest in the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament, dating from around 1010AD. It is a Masoretic text, and considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church.
Muz, do you believe this Old Testament text is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God for the O.T.? If so, I want to ask about two simple examples (though I have many more I could ask about).

What does your Leningrad codex say in 2 Chronicles 22:2? Does it say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, or does it say he was 22 years old as the NASB, NIV, ESV have it? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 years old. So, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Chron. 22:2 and how do you reconcile these two different numbers?

Secondly, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Samuel 15:7, forty years or four years?

In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father, king David. Verses 7-8 say: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD."

The versions that agree with the King James Bible reading of "after FORTY years" are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the NASB, Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Douay, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and The Message all read "after FOUR years Absalom...". The footnote in the RSV, NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4, while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes a sitting on the fence footnote which says: "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4.".

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version has: "After four (10) years Absalom said to the king, “Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron." Then in a footnote Dr. Wallace says: " The MT (Hebrew Masorretic Text) has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom."

What does your Leningrad codex read and how do you account for the number of “after 40 years”?


Quote:
One of the significant errors of the KJV (and this is confirmed by other "majority text" texts actually demotes Christ from being God. In John 1:18, the KJV says:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
The NASB (and all other modern translations) say:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
And based upon the structure of John 1:1-18, verse 18 should reflect verses 1-3, where the "Word was God." But in the KJV, John's work is destroyed by a textual variant not picked up by Erasmus when creating the TR, and apparently the KJV translators missed the Holy Spirit's inspiration when translating this verse.
Frankly, Muz, I was a bit surprised that you would pick this as being an alleged error or problem in the King James Bible. Rather, it is the NASB reading that is theologically absurd and heretical.

Here is my ‘little’ study on this verse.

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, Rivudeta 1927, Luther's German Bible 1545, German Schlachter 1951, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the Revised Version 1881 and American Standard Version1901, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced
.
2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible 1970

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

12. The Message 2002 - " No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day." A "one of a kind God expression"???

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are TWO GODS and one of them is inferior to the other. Read it any way you wish, but the undeniable fact is you end up with TWO GODS. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the ONLY God.

Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here? Well, it's the fickle, shifting sands of modern scholarship.

Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which translation preceded anything we have in the remaining Greek copies, read: "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,
"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,
"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:
"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.

In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origin of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLD, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.


WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Will Kinney

Here is a very well done article on John 1:18 and the heretical reading of the NASB, NIV versions done by a man who is not even a KJB onlyist. Tim Warner has written an excellent refutation of the NASB, NIV reading. See it here:

http://studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."



   
  (#7) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 22nd, 2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.
However, this is not the point of this debate. This debate is about your demonstrating for us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. Whether this "originals only" view is right or wrong isn't horribly relevant, as one could make similar claims about any number of bible translations, assuming it to be the inerrant word, and pointing out the errors in the KJV.

Quote:
Nor is there anything within Scripture that tells us the Hebrew nor the Greek, nor a multitude of conflicting partial manuscripts and scraps of papyri, nor the NASB, NIV, ESV,NKJV or NET version would be God’s inerrant word either.
This is incorrect. The bible does tell us that the original writing in inspired by God. However, that's not the point of this debate.

Quote:
You talk about “God’s inerrant word”, yet you do not have it. Can’t you see the inconsistency of such a position? Professing to believe in something you know does not exist is not a sign of mature spiritual growth.
Did I say that we don't have it? I don't recall saying that.

However, once again, you're shifting away from your burden to prove that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. If you wish to discuss "How did God preserve His Word," we can open another thread at a later time. However, you've not demonstrated that the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, yet.

Quote:
Muz, you have probably heard this before but your statement is much like saying “God’s words are preserved in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary - they are in there somewhere, all mixed up with many words that are not the right ones, and they're all out of order, but Hey, there in there somewhere!”
In fact, that's a very poor analogy, and a further attempt to avoid the debate at hand.

Quote:
Let me ask you this, Muz. Do you personally believe God has preserved His words? If so, which verses would you use to support such a belief?
Again, off topic. What I believe about preservation isn't at issue, here. What's at issue is your burden to prove to us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

Quote:
My Previous question to you: In closing I would like to ask you one simple question. I do hope you will be kind enough to answer it for us. Do you personally believe there exists such a thing as the preserved, inspired, complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any language on the face of the earth today? If yes, then could you please tell us where we too can get a printed copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now and see the differences?
And the reader will notice that Mt. Kinney continues to attempt to change the standard of the debate away from his burden of proving an inerrant text, to having me prove that something else is.

The fact is that, if this debate provides no evidence of any inerrant text, then Mr. Kinney has lost the debate.

In another context, I may provide a more comprehensive answer, but this is a derailment of this thread from its purpose.

Quote:
Muz, rather than turning the debate around and shifting goalposts, this vital question is directly related to our ongoing discussion. You have placed yourself in the position of measuring the King James Bible and pronouncing it wanting and deficient.
And that is my ONLY task.

Quote:
So it is only a reasonable and logical question for me to ask you. By what standard are you sitting in judgment on the Book God has seen fit to use so mightily in history and the only one anyone today actually believes IS the complete and inerrant, preserved words of the living God.
In a subsequent debate, this might be a question to address. However, this debate isn't about my beliefs regarding preservation, but your assertion that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. So far, you've not provide any evidence that the KJV is, in fact, this text.

Quote:
As it turns out, it seems your measuring stick consists of two elements: #1. the non-existent and never seen by you “originals”, and #2. your own mind and present understanding, which by the way, differs from everybody else’s.
I've not articulated my view. That has been intentional. I have stated that I believe in a preserved text. However, again, this debate isn't about my view of preservation. It's about YOUR view of the KJV being inerrant, which you seem unable to demonstrate, and you seem insistent on denigrating what you perceive to be my view, in lieu of real evidence.

Quote:
For the sake of relative brevity I would like to address the two main points you bring up in the remainder of your response, if you don’t mind. You talk about the Leningrad Codex for the Old Testament, and several of your points had to do with John 1:18.
You missed the more important (and last) point, which I will reiterate at the end.

Quote:
Muz, do you believe this Old Testament text is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God for the O.T.? If so, I want to ask about two simple examples (though I have many more I could ask about).

What does your Leningrad codex say in 2 Chronicles 22:2? Does it say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, or does it say he was 22 years old as the NASB, NIV, ESV have it? 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22 years old. So, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Chron. 22:2 and how do you reconcile these two different numbers?
Quite honestly, if this is the standard then the KJV has the same issue:
Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed, in spite of what the KJV says, here. So, if the standard of inerrancy is the picky details of the text, then you've denied everyone any opportunity to claim inerrancy.

Quote:
Secondly, what does your Leningrad codex read in 2 Samuel 15:7, forty years or four years?

In 2 Samuel we read of Absalom's rebellion against his father, king David. Verses 7-8 say: "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go a pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD."

The versions that agree with the King James Bible reading of "after FORTY years" are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, the NASB, Revised Version, American Standard Version 1901, Douay, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Webster's, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard and The Message all read "after FOUR years Absalom...". The footnote in the RSV, NRSV says the number 4 comes from the Greek and Syriac, while the Hebrew says 40. The NIV footnote says SOME LXX, Syriac and Josephus say 4, while the Hebrew says 40. My copy of the LXX says 40. The NKJV also includes a sitting on the fence footnote which says: "Septuagint manuscript, Syriac and Josehpus have 4.".

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version has: "After four (10) years Absalom said to the king, “Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron." Then in a footnote Dr. Wallace says: " The MT (Hebrew Masorretic Text) has here “forty,” but this is presumably a scribal error for “four.” The context will not tolerate a period of forty years prior to the rebellion of Absalom."

What does your Leningrad codex read and how do you account for the number of “after 40 years”?
Again, if this is your standard, then you've defeated yourself. Remember that the point, here, isn't to compare the KJV to other translations or texts, but for you to prove that the KJV is inerrant.

The problem you have now is that you've set up a standard that causes the KJV to fail, as I've demonstrated.

Quote:
Frankly, Muz, I was a bit surprised that you would pick this as being an alleged error or problem in the King James Bible. Rather, it is the NASB reading that is theologically absurd and heretical.
Let's examine your case.

Quote:
Here is my ‘little’ study on this verse.

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, Rivudeta 1927, Luther's German Bible 1545, German Schlachter 1951, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the Revised Version 1881 and American Standard Version1901, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced
.
2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible 1970

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

12. The Message 2002 - " No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day." A "one of a kind God expression"???

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are TWO GODS and one of them is inferior to the other. Read it any way you wish, but the undeniable fact is you end up with TWO GODS. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."
Well, here's your first error. And it's as plain as the nose of your face.

How is that "the one and only God" can be two gods? Your conclusion isn't just wrong. It's absurd. You're trying to cover an error in the KJV, and you've blinded yourself to what the English translators have actually said.

Of course, you also engage in "guilt by association", an invalid debate tactic, as well. It seems you are so desperate to make this argument that you've not applied any critical thought to it.

Quote:
One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the ONLY God.
Again, "the only God" cannot mean two gods.

Quote:
Jesus Christ is by nature very God of very God. John 1 says "the Word was God". Notice it does not say the Word was THE God. God is triune yet one. If it had said "the Word was THE God" it would be a theological error. All that God is in the three Persons is not limited to the Word, but the Word (Jesus Christ) is by very nature God.

What the ESV teaches is a confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not "THE ONLY GOD" who makes known the God no one has seen. Jesus Christ is God by nature, but He is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.

We now have two more late$t and greate$t ver$ion$ coming on the scene. The ISV or International Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

The ISV reads: " No one has ever seen God. The UNIQUE God, (Other mss. read Son) who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him." Again, we have two Gods. One nobody has ever seen and then the "unique" God! Does this mean the God no one has seen is just an ordinary, run-of-the- mill, garden variety god, while the other one is totally unique?

But wait, the newest of them all is the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible, and it says: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him." Hey, this one went back to the reading of "Son" instead of "God". What gives here? Well, it's the fickle, shifting sands of modern scholarship.
As opposed to the wrong scholarship of the KJV? Again, you're back to comparing texts. You've not furthered your case, here.

Quote:
Those versions that teach that Jesus Christ is the "only Son" or "the one and only Son" are also incorrect in that angels are also called sons of God and so are Adam and all of God's other children. In either case, the corrupt and confusing readings found in many modern bible versions diminish the glory of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity is turned on its head.

The Nicene Creed (344 AD) states:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, . . . And in His Only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, by whom all things were made, in heaven and on the earth, visible and invisible . . ." (as cited from Athanasius: De Synodis, II:26).

The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18, which translation preceded anything we have in the remaining Greek copies, read: "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).

In 202 AD, Irenaeus wrote,
"For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].' For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible."(Against Heresies, 3:11:6)

In 324 AD, Alexander of Alexandria wrote:
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him: 'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300)

Ambrose (397 AD) writes,
"For this reason also the evangelist says, 'No one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.' 'The bosom of the Father,' then, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as a kind of innermost dwelling of the Father's love and of His nature, in which the Son always dwells. Even so, the Father's womb is the spiritual womb of an inner sanctuary, from which the Son has proceeded just as from a generative womb."(The Patrarches, 11:51).

Finally, Augustine (430 AD) wrote:
"For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him."(Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3)

The point is that most of the early Theologians in the Church not only recognized that monogenes means "only begotten," and defined it as such, but that the popular reading was "only begotten Son."
LOL... None of these men wrote in English or even lived when English was a language. How can you claim that they recognize that "monogenes" translates into "only begotten" in English? That's an absurd assertion.

Quote:
"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son." Westminster Confession, Chapter III.

In spite of some Greek lexicons, like Thayer's, which insist the meaning of monogenes is "unique" or "one of a kind", there are many others like Kittel's, Liddel and Scott and Vine's that tell us the Greek word monogenes emphatically means "only begotten" and not "one and only". It is significant that Thayer did not believe that Jesus Christ was God.
So, you're in league with the liberal theologian? (Or does guilt by association only work one way?)

Quote:
In Kittel's massive work Volume 4 page 741 the writer says: "In John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9 monogenes denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son. (notice he does not accept the false reading of 'God' in 1:18, and he states this on the previous page). In John monogenes denotes the origin of Jesus as the only begotten."

Even the modern Greek language dictionary, which has nothing to do with the Bible, says that monogenes means "only begotten", and not unique. The Greek word for "unique" or "one and only" is a very different and specific word - monodikos - not monogenes.

The translators of the King James Version were not unaware that monogenes can also be translated as "only" for they did so in Luke 7:12; 8:42; and 9:38, all of which refer to an only child and thus they were the only begotten, not an unique child.

Some who criticize the KJB tell us that the word means "unique" and they refer to Hebrews 11:17 where we are told: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." They point out that Isaac was not the only son of Abraham at the time, but that Ishmael had already been born of Abraham's union with Hagar. However a look at the text itself in Genesis 22:2,12 and 16 shows that God referred to Isaac as "thine ONLY son Isaac". Ishmael is not even taken into consideration by God since he was not the promised seed with whom God made the covenant of grace. As far as God was concerned, there was only one "only begotten son" of Abraham, and he is the spiritual type of the only begotten Son of God who became the lamb that was sacrificed for the sins of God's people.

The King James Bible is correct as always, and the divergent and contradictory readings in most modern versions are wrong.

NICENE CREED 325 A.D. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLD, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

CHALCEDON CREED 451 A.D. Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE THE AGES.

ATHANASIA CREED 500 A.D. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, NOT MADE NOR CREATED BUT BEGOTTEN. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
The right faith therefore is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. He is God of the substance of the Father, BEGTOTTEN BEFORE THE WORLDS, and He is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God, perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.

The BELGIC CONFESSION 1561 We believe that Jesus Christ, according to his divine nature, is the only Son of God-- ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE NOR CREATED, for then he would be a creature. He is one in essence with the Father; coeternal; the exact image of the person of the Father.

The 39 ARTICLES OF RELIGION 1571 Article II The Son, which is the Word of the Father, BEGOTTEN FROM EVERLASTING OF THE FATHER, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father.


WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 1646 In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

LONDON BAPTIST CONFESSION 1689 In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; THE SON IS ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
And all of this we can get from John 3:16. The point isn't whether Jesus is the begotten Son or not. The point is that the text of the KJV is wrong, and destroys John's writing.

I'm not going to flesh out the entire chiasm, here, but there is a clear parallel between John 1:1-3 and John 1:18
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In fact, John does a chiasm withing a chiasm, as we see, here. 1:1a parallels verse 3 (creation), 1:1b parallels verse 2, word with God, and 1:1c is the heart, the point of the chiasm, where the Word is God.

We can follow the larger chiasm through John 1:1-1:18, with the conclusion being:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him].
Now, since the the opening Chiasm, we both discussed the word being with God and the Word WAS God, the close would have to emphasize that the Word was God, as well, and that's what happens, here.

When you translate "Son", you destroy what John has created, and you denigrate one of the clear places where Jesus is God.

Quote:
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
I also find it disturbing that you align your words with the words of Christ.

Now, here's the point you missed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.
How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?


I'd also like to point out that you've yet to actually make a case on its own merits that the KJV is inerrant. You've pointed out where you think the KJV is right and other translations are wrong, but that doesn't establish inerrancy. You claim that the KJV is God's preserved Word, and have yet to provide a single link that uniquely points from Scripture to KJV. You've presented no logic that suggests that the KJV is what you claim it is.

At best, you've shown that you have a particular view of preservation, one not entirely supported in Scripture, and made claims that the KJV fulfills this view, even though there are a number of ways that it does not.

Are we coming to a point?

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#8) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible - April 22nd, 2008, 07:19 PM

Hi Muz. Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.

Quote:
However, this is not the point of this debate. This debate is about your demonstrating for us that the KJV is the inerrant word of God. Whether this "originals only" view is right or wrong isn't horribly relevant, as one could make similar claims about any number of bible translations, assuming it to be the inerrant word, and pointing out the errors in the KJV.
Muz. It is impossible for me to “prove” the King James Bible is the only true, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God, just as it is impossible to prove that God exists or that Christ died to save His people from their sins. Some have ears to hear and some do not and only God can open our hearts to the precious truths about His word.

There are numerous and very logical reasons we can list for believing the King James Bible to be the true words of God, but no one can “prove” it one way or the other. I listed many of these reasons in my original post. Some will see the reasonableness of these answers and others will think them foolish.

But I can guarantee you that every person who thinks them foolish is a person like yourself who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is today the preserved and infallible words of God.


You have the very definite problem of not being able to “prove” that the King James Bible is NOT the true and inspired words of God. In order for you to be able to do this, you would have to have a God given Standard by which you measure the King James Bible and find it to be wanting. You have no such standard and no such Holy Bible in any language by which you can compare the King James Bible and point out its ‘problems’.

All you have to offer us is selected portions of different parts of what you happen to think at the moment are “Scripture”, and you piece them together in no discernible fashion all according to your own whims and highly personalized understanding. You, sir, are a prime example of a card carrying Bible Rummager. You pick a little bit from here and perhaps some from over there, and make up your own bible version as go along, and yet you don’t believe there is such a thing as the preserved Book of the Lord anywhere on this earth.

You are very much like James White. He himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone, and neither do you. James also avoids answering direct questions and then accuses us Bible believers of not answering his questions. Apparently both you and he think you are the only ones who get to ask the questions. I asked you about your Leningrad codex which YOU brought up as though it were some kind of final written authority, and what do you do to my two simple questions? You slip right by and avoid answering them.

I merely asked you about what your codex says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and how you reconcile it with 2 Kings 8:26, and then about the one in 2 Samuel 15:7 and whether it says 40 or 4 years. And what do you do? Instead of giving us a straight answer you side step the whole issue and refer instead to Mark 4:31 and the mustard seed being the smallest seed or not, and then make statements that I don’t think anybody can understand.

Quote:
Quite honestly, if this is the standard then the KJV has the same issue: Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed, in spite of what the KJV says, here. So, if the standard of inerrancy is the picky details of the text, then you've denied everyone any opportunity to claim inerrancy.




Huh?!? Are you now saying that the Lord Jesus Christ was a liar or that He was mistaken about what He said? I’m afraid Muz that you have revealed a little too much about the way your mind works by asking about the mustard seed in this way, and that last part with your conclusion is unintelligible. YOU don’t claim inerrancy, so what was that last comment all about?

My guess as to why you won’t tell us what your Leningrad codex says is this - If you did, then you would probably tell us that it too has “scribal errors” and does not fit YOUR understanding of what God’s ‘infallible’ word should say.

At the risk (and I’ll gladly take it) of being accused of using those nasty ad hominens or whatever, I believe you and most Christians today fit the description given in the time of apostasy during the days of the judges - “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25


Now, regarding the whole post on John 1:18. I listed numerous Bible versions both old and new that all agree with the King James reading:
"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

There never was a bible version in history that I am aware of that ever read like your NASB with its two Gods theory. Not even the RV, ASV nor RSV went that far. If you can’t see the absurdity of what the NASB teaches in that rendering, then there is little point in discussing it further than all that I have already presented.

Your endless series of modern versions don’t even agree with each other. I also presented a whole list of Orthodox confessions regarding the nature of the Son of God being the only begotten Son (and NEVER the only begotten GOD), and you scoffed at the idea that all their writings would be translated as “only begotten”, all the while ignoring the very clear fact that all those quotes referred to the SON and not to the only begotten GOD.

So what if they didn’t write in English? Every English Bible since Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, etc. all the way up to the RSV used the texts that say SON and translated it as “the only begotten Son” in John 1:18. That is what the word means. It does not mean “unique” or”only”, and not even your NASB does so.

(Ignore the links if you wish. Just provided for those who would like to learn more)

Scott Jones has written a good article showing the true meaning of the Greek word is “only begotten” and not “unique” or “only”. There is a very different Greek word for this.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco.../monogenes.htm

And for Scott's article showing the assault on the Only Begotten Son of God in John 1:18 please go to this site.

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco...gotten_son.htm

By the way, since you quote the NASB here in John 1:18 do you happen to believe the NASB is the complete and perfect words of God? Of course you don’t; you’re a Bible Rummager ;-)

Revelation 22 - the point I missed.

Quote:
Now, here's the point you missed:
Originally Posted by me
Now, what is most interesting about these manuscripts is that there was only one copy of Revelation, and that was missing the last several verses. That means that the TR version of Revelation contained whatever Scribal errors were committed in that one manuscript, and that Erasmus had to do something else to come up with the ending.

What did Erasmus do? He went to the Latin Vulgate, and translated the Latin back into Greek. Yes, the Greek NT that the supposed inspired KJV is based upon doesn't even have all of its text based in a line of copies based in the original language.
How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?
Muz, again you are misinformed about several things here. Erasmus had traveled all over Europe reading, collating and comparing many Greek manuscripts before he put together his printed Greek text. He was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his day. However, the King James Bible translators did not always follow Erasmus’s texts. They also had access to other Greek copies, many foreign language Bibles, and the Greek texts of both Stephanus and Beza.

Stephanus and Beza both had access to Greek texts that Erasmus did not, and what we find in the last few verses of Revelation is that both Stephanus and Beza’s reading agree with what Erasmus knew about.

Not even your modern versions agree among themselves in the last few verses of Revelation and you are no doubt jumping all over trying to make a big stink about there being an ‘error’ in the KJB over just ONE word - the “book” of life. Am I right?

Here is what I have on these verses.

Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life?

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the BOOK of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Rather than saying "book of life", versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and the Catholic versions read: "God will take away his share in the TREE of life."

It should be noted that there are several textual differences found in just the last few verses of Revelation, and that not even the modern versions agree among themselves.

For instance, in verses 20 and 21, the King James Bible as well as the Majority of all texts reads: "EVEN SO, come, Lord Jesus." However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit the word for "even so", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Again, in verse 21 in the KJB we read: "The grace of our Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN." Here the word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, but again Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit it, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Then in the very last part of the last verse of Revelation, where the KJB says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL, AMEN", here Sinaiticus is different from all other texts, reading "with THE SAINTS". The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version all read "with the SAINTS" (following Sinaiticus) while the NIV paraphrases the Sinaiticus reading as "with GOD'S PEOPLE".

However the NASB 1995 and the new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) now reject Sinaiticus and go with Alexandrinus instead, which says: "with ALL" and omits the word "you". But wait. The even newer ISV (International Standard Version), and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard have once again gone back to the Sinaiticus reading of "with the saints". The modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

It is more than a tad hypocritical of Bible correctors to criticize the King James reading "book of life", when the two other variant readings adopted by the conflicting modern versions of "with all" and "with the saints" are found ONLY in ONE manuscript each and, according to the UBS textual apparatus, not in any other ancient version or quoted by any church father.

Regarding the final word AMEN, manuscript Alexandrinus omits this word, but it is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but this time the NASB, ESV chose to reject the Alexandrinus manuscript they had just followed, and went back to the Sinaiticus they had previously rejected and now include the word Amen!

Do the modern versions always follow the Majority reading? Not at all. In fact they reject the Majority readings literally thousands of times. Do they always follow Sinaiticus? No, not at all. They continually pick and choose among the various readings; do not always agree with each other, and their own printed Greek texts found in Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society editions are constantly changing every few years.

Many anti-King James Bible critics bring up "the book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19 as an error. One well known such critic is Doug Kutilek.

Men like Mr. Kutilek have no inspired, complete, inerrant Bible and they often resort to personal opinion presented as fact, and outright falsehood as though it were irrefutable evidence. Let's read some of what he has to say and then we will respond to his criticisms.

In Mr. Kutilek's article he says there are "a number of unique readings in Erasmus' texts, that is, readings which are found in no known Greek manuscript but which are nevertheless found in the editions of Erasmus. One of these is the reading "book of life" in Revelation 22:19. All known Greek manuscripts here read "tree of life" instead of "book of life" as in the textus receptus. Where did the reading "book of life" come from? When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. Unfortunately, the copy of the Vulgate he used read "book of life," unlike any Greek manuscript of the passage, and so Erasmus introduced a "unique" Greek reading into his text."

First of all, Mr. Kutilek says there are no Greek manuscripts that read "book of life". He is flat out wrong about this. Dr. Thomas Holland, Jack Moorman, Dr. H.C. Hoskier and many others have documented the textual evidence that exists for the reading of "book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19.

Dr. Holland responds to this charge at his website -
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/advanc01.htm

There this question is posed and Dr. Holland responds:
Question: "If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last six verses of Revelation absent from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?

Dr. Holland replies: "The "TR" has the last six verses of Revelation in it. It is found in the editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers.

Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus, was missing Revelation 22:16-21. The standard teaching is that Erasmus went back to the Latin Vulgate for these verses and re-translated them into Greek. However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.)

Regardless, the textual support for these verses is not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic, and some later Greek manuscripts.

Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22, or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22. Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few).

Of course, the biggest "change" comes in verse 19. Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek manuscripts 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bachiarius (late fourth century), and Primasius in his commentary on Revelation in 552 AD. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages."
Dr. Thomas Holland

Mr. Jack Moorman, in his book "When the KJV Departs from the 'Majority' Text", says the reading of "book of life" is also found in the Coptic Boharic, the Arabic, the Speculum, Pseudo-Agustine and written as such in the Latin of Adrumentum 552, Andreas of Cappadocia, 614 Haaymo, Halberstadt, Latin 841. "Book of life" is found in the Greek manuscripts of # 296, 2049, and in the margin of 2067.

Libro (book) is the reading of the Latin mss. Codex Fuldensis (sixth century); Codex Karolinus (ninth century); Codex Oxoniensis (twelfth to thirteenth century); Codex Ulmensis (ninth century); Codex Uallicellanus (ninth century); Codex Sarisburiensis (thirteenth century); and the corrector of Codex Parisinus (ninth century)."

Secondly, Mr. Kutilek is very misleading when he says that Erasmus had no Greek texts to consult for the ending of Revelation and so he copied from the Latin Vulgate. It is well documented that Erasmus was exceedingly well acquainted with hundreds of Greek manuscripts from his extensive travels and studies. You can read more about this in a very informative article dealing with the question of Is the Received Text Based on A Few Late Manuscripts?

(The links I provide are just for those who may be interested in learning more about defending the King James Bible as being the pure words of God. Those who don’t care to read them can just ignore them)

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

Thirdly, in his article Mr. Kutilek also states as fact what is really unfounded conjecture when he says: "The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. read with Erasmus shows that their texts were more or less slavish reprints of Erasmus' text and not independently compiled editions, for had they been edited independently of Erasmus, they would surely have followed the Greek manuscripts here and read "tree of life."

This is pure guesswork on his part. Stephanus had access to many Greek manuscripts that Erasmus did not possess, as well as Beza. For example, Stephanus mentions and John Gill confirms that the three heavenly witnesses of "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" of 1 John 5:7 was the reading found in 9 of the 16 Greek manuscripts Stephanus used, yet we do not have any of these Greek texts today. Earlier writers like Stephanus, Calvin, Beza often make referrences to the readings of old Greek manuscripts which we no longer possess.
Fourthly, when Mr. Kutilek argues in favor of the Westcott-Hort text being based on "the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers", it seems than many "scholars" of equal learning have come to the exact opposite conclusion.

This is a direct quote from the Preface of the New King James Version by people who have attended the same seminaries and have access to the same information. Here is what they say on page vii: "The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.

However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability.

On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament."


Even Dr. Hort of the famed Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The Factor of Geneology, pg 92)


The Providence of God has seen fit to place this reading in most Bibles that have been used throughout history to reach millions for Christ. These include Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1587. "Book of life" is found in Young's, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, and the New KJV.

It is also the reading of the 1569 Sagradas Escrituras, and the Spanish Reina Valera versions from 1602, 1909, 1960 and 1995 used throughout the Spanish speaking world, as well as the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996, and the Modern Greek N.T. used by the Greek Orthodox churches throughout the world today.

Martin Luther's translation of 1545, using Greek texts before Stephanus' 1550 edition, also reads "book of life". I met a Russian pastor a couple years ago and asked him what his Russian Bible said here. He told me it reads book of life too.

Besides all these English, Spanish, French, German and Greek bibles, I have been able to confirm that the following Bible versions also read "book of life": The Afrikaans Bible of 1953, the Albanian, the Basque New Testament (Navarro-Labourdin), the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Hungarian Karoli, the Icelandic Bible version, the Italian New Diodati, and the Douay-Rheims.

The Catholic versions and the Latin Vulgate also disagree among themselves, with Jerome's Vulgate and the 1950 Douay, and the Jerusalem Bible all reading "tree of life", while the older Douay-Rheims and the Clementine Vulgate both read "book of life".

As a side note, the number 7 is highly significant in the book of Revelation and in the texts that underlie the King James Bible, and the phrase "the book of life" is found 7 times. This is the number of divine perfection. In the NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and NASB it is only found 6 times. Six is the number man, who is weak and prone to fail.

Mr. Kutilek closes his article by saying: "Some writers calculate the differences between the two texts at something over 5,000, though in truth a large number of these are so insignificant as to make no difference in the resulting English translation.* Without making an actual count, I would estimate the really substantial variations to be only a few hundred at most. What shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text nor the textus receptus as our standard text, our text of last appeal... we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made."

Do you see where Mr. Kutilek is coming from? (And by extension, Muz too) He is his own Final Authority. He has no inerrant, complete, inspired Bible to give you or recommend. He is like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25.

There ultimately is no certain way of knowing what the "originals" really said, because we simply do not have them, and literally thousands of Greek copies have been lost to time and decay. The King James reading of "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 is not without textual support, be that of Greek copies, ancient versions, Latin manuscripts, early church fathers or modern English and foreign language versions.

I and many thousands of other Bible believers have come to the conclusion that God meant what He said in His Book about His preserved words.

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."


Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."


John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."




Muz, since you yourself do not have nor recommend ANY Final Written Standard by which we can determine if something is inerrant or not, you are left with no “proof” that the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God. All we have is your personal opinion. Maybe you can play the ol' scholar poker game. You know, the one where people say: “My scholars can beat your scholars. No they can't. Yes, they can. OK, I'll bet you two scholars to your one; OK, I’ll see your two scholars and raise you three more.”

I have seen all this type of scholarly bluff before and am not impressed nor moved away from my conviction that unless the King James Bible is the complete, preserved and infallible words of God, then there is no such thing as an inspired and inerrant Bible and Christians should stop the hypocrisy of saying they believe such statements as “The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God” when they in fact do not.


(Whether it disturbs you or not)

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” - the Lord Jesus Christ


All of sovereign grace,

Will Kinney



   
  (#9) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 23rd, 2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi Muz. Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.
Well, let's go there for a bit. If this is the promise now, then this has always been the promise to the Church.

And my position isn't just "originals only", but that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God.

But this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened.

After the completion of the writing of Scripture, the writings that were considered Scripture and those that were not were in dispute for about 240 years. For those 240 years, no one could definitively say that a particular set of writings was the 100% inspired word of God, as well.

Even after many had collected the various letters, there wasn't agreement on which were Scripture.

It wasn't until around 300AD that this issue came to a head, and church scholars had to get together and discover which letters were legitimate Scripture, and which were not. 2 Peter and 2 Timothy were very much in doubt, whereas some favored including the Shepherd of Hermes and the Gospel of Peter and possibly even the gospel of Thomas.

And this went on for years, until the Easter letter written in 325AD, which established the canon that we use today.

And between then and around 400AD, texts were collected, coalesced, corrected, and established as the Canon. All text types, including the MT, come from this work, in which the Church was tasked with discovering the preserved text.

Thus, preservation is something done by God, and its happening occurs irrespective of whether any individual can put their hands on it. And this was, in fact, the case for at least 250 years.

So, by your standard, God failed to keep this promise from the time Scripture was complete (as late as 90AD) until 325AD, where no Christian could definitively put a book into your hand and say that it was 100% of the Word of God, because the Church hadn't discovered the list of books, yet.

Thus, even as the church had to discover the canon of Scripture as it continued to use what it had, whether included or not, the church has continued to use the text of Scripture as preserved in the Scribal copies presented to us, and, ever since 325AD, been working to discover the original text, and continue to improve the way in which we do so.

Thus, given the history of the Bible, you have God failing to keep His promise for over 200 years.

That, to me, is a very wrong headed view of God and Scripture, and thus a very incorrect view of preservation.

Quote:
Muz. It is impossible for me to “prove” the King James Bible is the only true, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God, just as it is impossible to prove that God exists or that Christ died to save His people from their sins. Some have ears to hear and some do not and only God can open our hearts to the precious truths about His word.
Seems to me that we can end this debate now. You've just admitted that you are unable to demonstrate what you are charged with proving.


Quote:
There are numerous and very logical reasons we can list for believing the King James Bible to be the true words of God, but no one can “prove” it one way or the other. I listed many of these reasons in my original post. Some will see the reasonableness of these answers and others will think them foolish.
Why, then, can we not have a rational discussion about the best reading of Scripture outside of your insistence that the KJV is always right? There are many instances where the KJV is clearly wrong.

Quote:
But I can guarantee you that every person who thinks them foolish is a person like yourself who does not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is today the preserved and infallible words of God.
You can guarantee a complete, inerrant text to those who lived between 100AD and 325AD?

Quote:
You have the very definite problem of not being able to “prove” that the King James Bible is NOT the true and inspired words of God. In order for you to be able to do this, you would have to have a God given Standard by which you measure the King James Bible and find it to be wanting. You have no such standard and no such Holy Bible in any language by which you can compare the King James Bible and point out its ‘problems’.
Actually, I don't have to prove that. Not for this debate. This isn't about whether there is a preserved text or what it is, but whether the KJV is the inerrant word of God. You've already admitted that your foundation is your own belief, rather than a rational conclusion.

Quote:
All you have to offer us is selected portions of different parts of what you happen to think at the moment are “Scripture”, and you piece them together in no discernible fashion all according to your own whims and highly personalized understanding. You, sir, are a prime example of a card carrying Bible Rummager. You pick a little bit from here and perhaps some from over there, and make up your own bible version as go along, and yet you don’t believe there is such a thing as the preserved Book of the Lord anywhere on this earth.
Actually, what I have to offer is the evidence that the KJV has errors and is based in an erroneous text, which I have done, and you've note successfully refuted.

Furthermore, your engaging in this kind of ad homenim demonstrates your inability to prove your case.

Quote:
You are very much like James White. He himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone, and neither do you. James also avoids answering direct questions and then accuses us Bible believers of not answering his questions. Apparently both you and he think you are the only ones who get to ask the questions.
I'd prefer to defend myself, rather than James white.

Quote:
I asked you about your Leningrad codex which YOU brought up as though it were some kind of final written authority, and what do you do to my two simple questions? You slip right by and avoid answering them.
That's because they aren't the topic of this debate. You wish to use what you perceive as weakness in my belief (based upon your presuppositions) as a foil upon which to elevate the KJV, and claim victory.

However, as you've already stated, there is no Scriptural or logical basis for claiming that the KJV is the inspired text of God. The best you can do is claim that it is better than the rest. That's not enough.

And, once again, you insist on not presenting a clear case for the KJV being the inspired word of God, but rather try to use comparison.

Quote:
I merely asked you about what your codex says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and how you reconcile it with 2 Kings 8:26, and then about the one in 2 Samuel 15:7 and whether it says 40 or 4 years. And what do you do? Instead of giving us a straight answer you side step the whole issue and refer instead to Mark 4:31 and the mustard seed being the smallest seed or not, and then make statements that I don’t think anybody can understand.
What's unclear about it? The KJV makes a statement that is untrue. The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. This goes to address your point about whether a number is correct or not. You're in the same boat. The inspiration of Scripture is not found in the meaningless details. Yes, there's a scribal error in the BHS, which is reflected in some translations of the bible. Your problem is that the KJV has no textual basis to change the number. The KJV translators edited the text of Scripture. (And not improperly.)

The NIV, oddly enough, translates the mustard seed as "smallest of all your seeds", which is actually the correct way to phrase it.

Maybe the NIV is the inerrant text. (At least for this verse.)

Quote:
Huh?!? Are you now saying that the Lord Jesus Christ was a liar or that He was mistaken about what He said? I’m afraid Muz that you have revealed a little too much about the way your mind works by asking about the mustard seed in this way, and that last part with your conclusion is unintelligible. YOU don’t claim inerrancy, so what was that last comment all about?
Not at all. My point was that you're straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. Jesus isn't making a biological statement about the size of various seeds. He's speaking about having a little faith being a big thing.

In the same way, the numbers you're speaking of aren't the relevant elements of each passage. Whether the king became so at 22 or 42 isn't important in light of the fact that he did become king and reigned for a year, and what he did.

Thus, if you want to say that something isn't inerrant because of picky details, then you have to make the same conclusion about the mustard seed in the KJV.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Personally, I prefer my solution to yours.

Quote:
My guess as to why you won’t tell us what your Leningrad codex says is this - If you did, then you would probably tell us that it too has “scribal errors” and does not fit YOUR understanding of what God’s ‘infallible’ word should say.
I just did, but wanted to make sure you understood what I said before you went on to ignore it.

Quote:
At the risk (and I’ll gladly take it) of being accused of using those nasty ad hominens or whatever, I believe you and most Christians today fit the description given in the time of apostasy during the days of the judges - “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
This is typical of someone who is losing a debate.

Quote:
Now, regarding the whole post on John 1:18. I listed numerous Bible versions both old and new that all agree with the King James reading:
"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

There never was a bible version in history that I am aware of that ever read like your NASB with its two Gods theory. Not even the RV, ASV nor RSV went that far. If you can’t see the absurdity of what the NASB teaches in that rendering, then there is little point in discussing it further than all that I have already presented.
Nice that you skip over your blunder in accusing "one and only" of being two.

Quote:
Your endless series of modern versions don’t even agree with each other. I also presented a whole list of Orthodox confessions regarding the nature of the Son of God being the only begotten Son (and NEVER the only begotten GOD), and you scoffed at the idea that all their writings would be translated as “only begotten”, all the while ignoring the very clear fact that all those quotes referred to the SON and not to the only begotten GOD.
I didn't scoff at all. I was pointing out that Greek texts point us to another reading.

Quote:
So what if they didn’t write in English? Every English Bible since Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, etc. all the way up to the RSV used the texts that say SON and translated it as “the only begotten Son” in John 1:18. That is what the word means. It does not mean “unique” or”only”, and not even your NASB does so.
That's because they tended to prefer that reading. Later evidence has pointed us in another direction.

Quote:
By the way, since you quote the NASB here in John 1:18 do you happen to believe the NASB is the complete and perfect words of God? Of course you don’t; you’re a Bible Rummager ;-)
As opposed to someone who thinks God doesn't keep His promises?

Quote:
Revelation 22 - the point I missed.

Muz, again you are misinformed about several things here. Erasmus had traveled all over Europe reading, collating and comparing many Greek manuscripts before he put together his printed Greek text. He was recognized as one of the greatest scholars of his day. However, the King James Bible translators did not always follow Erasmus’s texts. They also had access to other Greek copies, many foreign language Bibles, and the Greek texts of both Stephanus and Beza.
That's not the point. It is documented fact that Erasmus didn't use all the texts he collected, but only used a half dozen or so texts, with only one having Revelation, and that not all of it. You can spew all the other facts about what Erasmus did outside of his GNT, but the fact remains that Erasmus only used a few late texts, and didn't have any Greek for the last verses of Revelation.

Quote:
Stephanus and Beza both had access to Greek texts that Erasmus did not, and what we find in the last few verses of Revelation is that both Stephanus and Beza’s reading agree with what Erasmus knew about.
But we don't know if they just agreed, or if they did any research. Again, access doesn't mean that they used them.

Quote:
Not even your modern versions agree among themselves in the last few verses of Revelation and you are no doubt jumping all over trying to make a big stink about there being an ‘error’ in the KJB over just ONE word - the “book” of life. Am I right?
I haven't said anything about it. However, you're back to comparison, again.

Quote:
Here is what I have on these verses.

Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life?

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the BOOK of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Rather than saying "book of life", versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and the Catholic versions read: "God will take away his share in the TREE of life."

It should be noted that there are several textual differences found in just the last few verses of Revelation, and that not even the modern versions agree among themselves.
In fact, the "majority text" disagrees with the "textus recepus". Should the KJV go with the TR or the MT? You've been hawking both as the same, but they disagree, here.

This certainly casts a lot of doubt on your claim.

Quote:
For instance, in verses 20 and 21, the King James Bible as well as the Majority of all texts reads: "EVEN SO, come, Lord Jesus." However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit the word for "even so", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Again, in verse 21 in the KJB we read: "The grace of our Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. AMEN." Here the word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, but again Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus omit it, and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard.

Then in the very last part of the last verse of Revelation, where the KJB says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL, AMEN", here Sinaiticus is different from all other texts, reading "with THE SAINTS". The Revised Version, the American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version all read "with the SAINTS" (following Sinaiticus) while the NIV paraphrases the Sinaiticus reading as "with GOD'S PEOPLE".

However the NASB 1995 and the new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) now reject Sinaiticus and go with Alexandrinus instead, which says: "with ALL" and omits the word "you". But wait. The even newer ISV (International Standard Version), and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard have once again gone back to the Sinaiticus reading of "with the saints". The modern versions don't even agree among themselves.

It is more than a tad hypocritical of Bible correctors to criticize the King James reading "book of life", when the two other variant readings adopted by the conflicting modern versions of "with all" and "with the saints" are found ONLY in ONE manuscript each and, according to the UBS textual apparatus, not in any other ancient version or quoted by any church father.

Regarding the final word AMEN, manuscript Alexandrinus omits this word, but it is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, but this time the NASB, ESV chose to reject the Alexandrinus manuscript they had just followed, and went back to the Sinaiticus they had previously rejected and now include the word Amen!

Do the modern versions always follow the Majority reading? Not at all. In fact they reject the Majority readings literally thousands of times. Do they always follow Sinaiticus? No, not at all. They continually pick and choose among the various readings; do not always agree with each other, and their own printed Greek texts found in Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society editions are constantly changing every few years.

Many anti-King James Bible critics bring up "the book of life" as found in Revelation 22:19 as an error.
You brought it up, not me.

Quote:
Do you see where Mr. Kutilek is coming from? (And by extension, Muz too) He is his own Final Authority. He has no inerrant, complete, inspired Bible to give you or recommend. He is like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25.
You're putting words in my mouth, and it's not appreciated.

Quote:
There ultimately is no certain way of knowing what the "originals" really said, because we simply do not have them, and literally thousands of Greek copies have been lost to time and decay. The King James reading of "book of life" in Revelation 22:19 is not without textual support, be that of Greek copies, ancient versions, Latin manuscripts, early church fathers or modern English and foreign language versions.
One again, Mr. Kinney admits that the KJV cannot be demonstrated to be inerrant.

Quote:
I and many thousands of other Bible believers have come to the conclusion that God meant what He said in His Book about His preserved words.
You mean that you believe that have an inerrant interpretation, in spite of the fact that this means that God didn't keep His promise for over 200 years.

Quote:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."


Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."


John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."
However, this doesn't point to the KJV at all. None of this indicates that the KJV would be this version. It's merely your presupposition, and that presupposition makes God out to be a failure in keeping His promises.

Quote:
Muz, since you yourself do not have nor recommend ANY Final Written Standard by which we can determine if something is inerrant or not, you are left with no “proof” that the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God.
As are you, which means you've failed.

Quote:
All we have is your personal opinion. Maybe you can play the ol' scholar poker game. You know, the one where people say: “My scholars can beat your scholars. No they can't. Yes, they can. OK, I'll bet you two scholars to your one; OK, I’ll see your two scholars and raise you three more.”
All we have is your personal opinion, too, except that your personal opinion makes God out as a failure in keeping His promises.

And that's the point, here. You have the task of proving that the KJV is inerrant. You've failed, so far.

Quote:
I have seen all this type of scholarly bluff before and am not impressed nor moved away from my conviction that unless the King James Bible is the complete, preserved and infallible words of God, then there is no such thing as an inspired and inerrant Bible and Christians should stop the hypocrisy of saying they believe such statements as “The Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God” when they in fact do not.
When you find one ,tell me.

Quote:
(Whether it disturbs you or not)
The only thing that disturbs me is that your idea of preservation means that God failed in this promise to the church for over 200 years.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#10) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible - April 23rd, 2008, 03:19 PM

Hi Muz. Thanks again for your response.

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.


Quote:
Well, let's go there for a bit. If this is the promise now, then this has always been the promise to the Church. And my position isn't just "originals only", but that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God.
Muz, you first posted: “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.” Now you tell us that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God. Again, you sound just like James White here.

I have read the Bible through many times and I have never run across the verse that charges the church to discover the originals. I know I’m getting older and my mind doesn’t always retain things, so maybe I missed it or forgot where this “charge” was found. Would you mind directing us to where exactly God gave this charge to the church, chapter and verse please? Thanks.



Quote:
But this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened.
After the completion of the writing of Scripture, the writings that were considered Scripture and those that were not were in dispute for about 240 years. For those 240 years, no one could definitively say that a particular set of writings was the 100% inspired word of God, as well. Even after many had collected the various letters, there wasn't agreement on which were Scripture.

It wasn't until around 300AD that this issue came to a head, and church scholars had to get together and discover which letters were legitimate Scripture, and which were not. 2 Peter and 2 Timothy were very much in doubt, whereas some favored including the Shepherd of Hermes and the Gospel of Peter and possibly even the gospel of Thomas.

And this went on for years, until the Easter letter written in 325AD, which established the canon that we use today.

And between then and around 400AD, texts were collected, coalesced, corrected, and established as the Canon. All text types, including the MT, come from this work, in which the Church was tasked with discovering the preserved text.

Thus, preservation is something done by God, and its happening occurs irrespective of whether any individual can put their hands on it. And this was, in fact, the case for at least 250 years.

So, by your standard, God failed to keep this promise from the time Scripture was complete (as late as 90AD) until 325AD, where no Christian could definitively put a book into your hand and say that it was 100% of the Word of God, because the Church hadn't discovered the list of books, yet.

Thus, even as the church had to discover the canon of Scripture as it continued to use what it had, whether included or not, the church has continued to use the text of Scripture as preserved in the Scribal copies presented to us, and, ever since 325AD, been working to discover the original text, and continue to improve the way in which we do so.

Thus, given the history of the Bible, you have God failing to keep His promise for over 200 years.

That, to me, is a very wrong headed view of God and Scripture, and thus a very incorrect view of preservation.
Muz, I too believe God will preserve His words, and in some sense this was a process, but I understand it very differently than you do. You think God is STILL in the process of preserving His words and He seems to not be anywhere near completing this work even today. In fact, among all those “scribal copies” you refer to, it seems these copies have been corrupted in numerous places and the scholars can’t figure out nor agree among themselves as to which parts have been corrupted or even lost, nor on how to “restore” them nor how to translate them once they finally have a pretty good idea as to which parts (never the whole) might be right.

I think the Bible itself gives us a lot of information regarding the preservation of Scripture. In Psalms 12 it says: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Again in Isaiah 59:21 we read: “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”

Now, obviously there were many inspired words of God written after both David and Isaiah penned these verses, and those future inspired words would eventually be placed inside this Book of the Lord that was in the process of being written and gathered together. But the point is, God DID eventually finish inspiring His Book and it has been put together.

I believe this process went through several steps. First the complete Old Testament was finished in the Hebrew tongue. Then the New Testament letters were written over a period of a few decades, and some early Christians had the right books even though they may not have been recognized as such until a later date. But they did exist and some people had them once the process of writing and gathering them was finished.

Since I wasn’t there (and neither were you), from what I know of the subject is that the New Testament was very soon translated into the Old Latin around 120 A.D. according to men like John Gill, and then into the Latinized language of the early Waldensians until the time of the Reformation.

I believe (but again cannot ‘prove’ to your satisfaction) that God is sovereign in history and He knew what He would do with both the English language (the closest thing to a universal language in these last days) and with the English and American missionaries over the next 300 years in spreading the word of God to the nations in the modern missionary movement. The King James Bible would change the world and be used in the greatest revivals of all time.

In this way God has established over a long period of time His Final Written Authority recognized all over the world as THE Bible of the English speaking people. The King James Bible is the only one that has been taken to space and read from there.

England just “happens” to be the one country from which we measure both the true universal time and direction (longitud), and serves as the standard for both. Just another ‘coincidence’, huh?

The King James Bible is the ONLY one believed by thousands all over the world to be the inerrant and inspired words of God. No other bible has this distinction and no other Bible raises the ire and hatred of so many people.

You ask for “proof” that the King James Bible is the pure, complete, preserved and infallible words of God. I never said I could prove it. Had you read my introduction carefully you would have seen that I said: “I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.”

I did not say I was going to “prove” it, but present the case for it’s being the true word of God. I liken this to proving God exists. It simply cannot be done, but you can present a lot of evidence that would lead some to that conclusion.

Even when we look at the Bible we see what God calls proofs are not accepted by multiplied millions. God says through Luke in Acts 1:3 - “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

Yet, there are thousands upon thousands who have scoffed at all these “infallible proofs” and tell us that neither we nor God has ‘proved’ anything.

If you think the debate is over because you do not accept my ‘proof’ and abundant evidence for the King James Bible being the only true Standard of the inspired words of God, then that is fine with me. I do not expect you to believe what I do about the King James Bible.

But it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.


The “Picky and Meaningless Details” of Muz’s ‘preserved scribal copies’

What I and many other Bible believers find so pathetically inconsistent on the part of men like yourself who pretend to believe The Bible is your lack of reverence in how you view the words of God.

I pointed out how the Hebrew texts (which I do believe are the preserved and inspired words of the living God) clearly read “after 40 years” in 2 Kings 15:7 while the NIV says 4 years, and in 2 Chron. 22:2 the Hebrew texts says 42 years, while the NIV has 22. You blithely responded: “The inspiration of Scripture is not found in the MEANINGLESS DETAILS. Yes, there's a scribal error in the BHS, which is reflected in some translations of the bible.” and “Thus, if you want to say that something isn't inerrant because of PICKY DETALS, then you have to make the same conclusion about the mustard seed in the KJV.


“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

And these are just a few of the hundreds of textual and translational differences I could show you.

Yet you have guys like Mr. Religion (another No Bible is inspired groupie here at TOL) telling us that the Bible is true in all its history. So which history in all the aforementioned verses is true?

If you and others like you think all these Scriptural examples of todays Bible Babel are merely “meaningless and picky details”, then I would not want to be in your shoes on day you stand before the God who said “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6


All of sovereign grace,

Will Kinney



   
  (#11) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 24th, 2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Hi Muz. Thanks again for your response.

Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said.
The continued attempt to label my position only serves notice that you are unable to properly demonstrate your own.

Quote:
The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.
The simple and undeniable fact is - Neither do you.

Quote:
Muz, you first posted: “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.” Now you tell us that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God. Again, you sound just like James White here.
Guilt by association, invalid debate tactic.

Quote:
I have read the Bible through many times and I have never run across the verse that charges the church to discover the originals. I know I’m getting older and my mind doesn’t always retain things, so maybe I missed it or forgot where this “charge” was found. Would you mind directing us to where exactly God gave this charge to the church, chapter and verse please? Thanks.
Maybe you should check 2 Peter 1:16-21.

Quote:
Muz, I too believe God will preserve His words, and in some sense this was a process, but I understand it very differently than you do. You think God is STILL in the process of preserving His words and He seems to not be anywhere near completing this work even today. In fact, among all those “scribal copies” you refer to, it seems these copies have been corrupted in numerous places and the scholars can’t figure out nor agree among themselves as to which parts have been corrupted or even lost, nor on how to “restore” them nor how to translate them once they finally have a pretty good idea as to which parts (never the whole) might be right.
Funny thing is that the KJV is based upon some of these very same corrupt Scripts. None of the Scripts that were used to create the KJV were perfect. They all had errors.

The difference between the KJV and modern translations, as we've pointed out before, is that Erasmus used a VERY limited number of scripts, and didn't even have the entire NT in those manuscripts. Why didn't he go to get more? Evidence tells us that the church was pressuring him to get it done fast, so they could release a GNT before another church did so.

Quote:
Vaganay's INTRO TO NT TC (1986, Engligh trans. Heimerdinger, 1991),
p. 131, explains, "In order to get it finished as quickly as possible,
he gave the printers three manuscripts which he had to [sic, at] hand,
namely codex 2e (Gospels), 2ap (Acts and the Epistles) and 1r
(Revelation); and he simply used a few other manuscripts (1eap, 4ap,
7p) to make some slight alterations to the text.)"

These manuscripts (with their current Gregory numbers in parentheses
and dates) are located as follows (from Aland's KURZEGEFASSTE LISTE):

1eap (1), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.2
1r (2814), XII cen., Ausburg, Univ. Bibl., Cod. I.1.4.1
2e (2), XI/XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.1
2ap (2815), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.4
4ap (2816), XV cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.5
7p (2817), XI cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.11

Quote:
I think the Bible itself gives us a lot of information regarding the preservation of Scripture. In Psalms 12 it says: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Sounds like God's actual words as originally spoken.

Quote:
Again in Isaiah 59:21 we read: “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”
No hint of writing, here. These are words in their mouths.

Quote:
Now, obviously there were many inspired words of God written after both David and Isaiah penned these verses, and those future inspired words would eventually be placed inside this Book of the Lord that was in the process of being written and gathered together. But the point is, God DID eventually finish inspiring His Book and it has been put together.
In the original language.

Quote:
I believe this process went through several steps. First the complete Old Testament was finished in the Hebrew tongue. Then the New Testament letters were written over a period of a few decades, and some early Christians had the right books even though they may not have been recognized as such until a later date. But they did exist and some people had them once the process of writing and gathering them was finished.
Historical evidence says otherwise. Almost from the time that the apostles died, there was dispute over whose letters and writings were Scripture and whose were not. There were pseudopigraphical writings that purported to be written by apostles, including the gospel of Peter and Thomas, that had to be decided. There was also the Shepherd of Hermes, which was written by Hermes.

(My apologies, I confused my Nicene creed date with my Scriptural canon date. The Easter letter was written in 367AD, and the council that confirmed it was in 393AD)

There were questions about whether Peter wrote 2 Peter. These were not resolved until 367.


Quote:
Since I wasn’t there (and neither were you), from what I know of the subject is that the New Testament was very soon translated into the Old Latin around 120 A.D. according to men like John Gill, and then into the Latinized language of the early Waldensians until the time of the Reformation.

Given the history of canonicity, I have some serious doubt about whether a complete and 100% inerrant text could have been assembled by anyone in 120AD. Certainly a translations of some of the books, along with some of the other writings is possible, but without canonical resolution, it would be unwise speculation to claim that an inerrant bible containing 100% of God's word existed then, and even a greater foolishness to claim that all Christians had access to it, given that the church was under Roman persecution, and access to scribal materials was very limited.

Quote:
I believe (but again cannot ‘prove’ to your satisfaction) that God is sovereign in history and He knew what He would do with both the English language (the closest thing to a universal language in these last days) and with the English and American missionaries over the next 300 years in spreading the word of God to the nations in the modern missionary movement. The King James Bible would change the world and be used in the greatest revivals of all time.
I think you're cheating the Holy Spirit. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the KJV, that inspired the gospel work. Certainly the printing press had a major impact on Christianity, and the KJV benefited greatly from its invention.

Quote:
In this way God has established over a long period of time His Final Written Authority recognized all over the world as THE Bible of the English speaking people. The King James Bible is the only one that has been taken to space and read from there.
ROFL. And you think this is evidence of its inerrancy?

Quote:
England just “happens” to be the one country from which we measure both the true universal time and direction (longitud), and serves as the standard for both. Just another ‘coincidence’, huh?
You gotta be kidding me.

Quote:
The King James Bible is the ONLY one believed by thousands all over the world to be the inerrant and inspired words of God. No other bible has this distinction and no other Bible raises the ire and hatred of so many people.
Hatred? Who hates the KJV? I think your movement has engaged in paranoia. I've never heard anyone speak with hatred towards the KJV.

Quote:
You ask for “proof” that the King James Bible is the pure, complete, preserved and infallible words of God. I never said I could prove it. Had you read my introduction carefully you would have seen that I said: “I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.”
Well, I think I've brought a good dose of reality to this myth. Clearly the Greek text it is based upon isn't inerrant. Clearly there are places where the KJV translators didn't represent the original.

All that remains is your unfounded proclamation of faith in the KJV.

Quote:
I did not say I was going to “prove” it, but present the case for it’s being the true word of God. I liken this to proving God exists. It simply cannot be done, but you can present a lot of evidence that would lead some to that conclusion.
However, God's existence is a necessary presupposition for the Christian. Without God, there is no Christianity. If the KJV never came into existence, Christianity would still exist. Another version would have been produced and benefited from the printing press, and been used around the world to proclaim the gospel. There is, simply put, nothing particularly special about this Anglican translation of Scripture.

Quote:
Even when we look at the Bible we see what God calls proofs are not accepted by multiplied millions. God says through Luke in Acts 1:3 - “To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”

Yet, there are thousands upon thousands who have scoffed at all these “infallible proofs” and tell us that neither we nor God has ‘proved’ anything.
Which is fine. Again, Christianity is not spread through apologetics.

Quote:
If you think the debate is over because you do not accept my ‘proof’ and abundant evidence for the King James Bible being the only true Standard of the inspired words of God, then that is fine with me. I do not expect you to believe what I do about the King James Bible.
I think the debate is over because you've admitted that you cannot provide evidence that it is inerrant.

Quote:
But it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.
So, you had a hidden agenda in engaging this debate. You had no intention of demonstrating that the KJV is inerrant, but rather wishes to try to put words in my mouth.

When it comes to facts and reality, faith doesn't help much. For many years, people believed that the world was flat, too. However, research and evidence proved otherwise.

That is what I have shown, here. Evidence rebuffs your belief, both in terms of your doctrine of preservation, and your faith in the KJV.

Quote:
I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.
This is just more putting words in my mouth. I do believe that God's inerrant words are in existence, and remain for the Church to continue to discover. The TR was an important step in this process, but not the last one. The KJV was an important motivation to continue to work towards this end, as it demonstrated the power of a translation of Scripture in the language of an increasingly literate populace.

But it was not the end.

Quote:
Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).
And? It's part of the process of discovering the originals.

Quote:
Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.
What's so hard to understand. It's been happening since the Scripture of God was finished being recorded. For over 300 years, no one, no commoner, no scholar could claim to be holding all of the inerrant Word of God. That's just plain historical fact. The church was left to discover the books of the canon, even as the struggled to keep God's word preserved through scribal process.

If this can happen for 300 years, why can it not continue for the next 1600?

The fact is that liberal theologians will continue to scoff at the bible. Claiming an inerrant English translation only makes them laugh even harder. If your issues regarding the reality of inerrancy create such insecurity that you feel the need to jump into this myth to try to silence them, then I suggest you deal with your insecurities regarding feeling the need to be accepted (or at least not laughed at) by liberal theologians.

If that's your standard, you're going to be insecure all your life. Liberal theologians laugh at us conservatives all the time.

It's time you got out of your insecurities and into reality. To be honest, if you went to a liberal theologian and told them that you were holding the inerrant word of God in your hands, and showed them a KJV, you'd be ridiculed far more than if you told them that the originals were inerrant.

To be honest, I'm being kind in my treatment of your view, because I do value you as a brother in Christ.

Quote:
God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.
Sounds like you're backing off of your view of preservation, as it's not really necessary for anyone to have the 100% preserved and inerrant word of God in their hands. If it's not necessary, then why insist on it, in the face of all the contrary evidence?

Quote:
The “Picky and Meaningless Details” of Muz’s ‘preserved scribal copies’

What I and many other Bible believers find so pathetically inconsistent on the part of men like yourself who pretend to believe The Bible is your lack of reverence in how you view the words of God.

I pointed out how the Hebrew texts (which I do believe are the preserved and inspired words of the living God) clearly read “after 40 years” in 2 Kings 15:7 while the NIV says 4 years, and in 2 Chron. 22:2 the Hebrew texts says 42 years, while the NIV has 22. You blithely responded: “The inspiration of Scripture is not found in the MEANINGLESS DETAILS. Yes, there's a scribal error in the BHS, which is reflected in some translations of the bible.” and “Thus, if you want to say that something isn't inerrant because of PICKY DETALS, then you have to make the same conclusion about the mustard seed in the KJV.


“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

And these are just a few of the hundreds of textual and translational differences I could show you.
And I'm not interested in the translational differences, as I don't consider any of them to be inerrant.

However, you've just put the KJV in with all the errant translations, as you've embraced a doctrine that means that if the mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds (and it is not), then the KJV has errors.

Which was the point of the original debate.

Quote:
Yet you have guys like Mr. Religion (another No Bible is inspired groupie here at TOL) telling us that the Bible is true in all its history. So which history in all the aforementioned verses is true?
You'll have to as him.

Quote:
If you and others like you think all these Scriptural examples of todays Bible Babel are merely “meaningless and picky details”, then I would not want to be in your shoes on day you stand before the God who said “Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee,and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6
The KJV adds to God's words. Even changes them. Again, you've just thrown the KJV down to the same level as the rest of the translations.

I think what this debate is exposing is the incorrect doctrine of preservation held by the KJVO, since there was no one could claim that they had a 100% inerrant book for about 300 years after the bible was written.

It has also exposed the fact that there is no Scriptural or textual support for the KJV's claim of inerrancy, and, in fact, the KJVO's own standard would have to report errors in the KJV.

And this doesn't include the errors and additions introduced by using a Greek Text based upon a VERY limited number of manuscripts that didn't even include the entire New Testament.

If you go back and read this debate, Mr. Kinney has continually attempted to shift the focus from the KJV and his doctrine of preservation, which was at issue here, to putting words in my mouth regarding my view of preservation, and presenting other translations as inferior to the KJV.

This kind of shifting of focus indicates an individual who knows his position is neither logical nor defensible, but is unwilling to give up his faith in the myth. I think the reader has sufficient evidence to reject the proposition as given.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#12) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible - April 25th, 2008, 08:34 PM

Hi Muz. Again, I thank you for your response and the other members of the Theology Online Forum for the opportunity to present my case for the King James Bible as being the preserved and inerrant words of God.


Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said.


Quote:
The continued attempt to label my position only serves notice that you are unable to properly demonstrate your own.
No, Muz. I am totally accurate when I label your position as being one who does not believe that any such thing as an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible exists in any language. I am a Bible believer who actually believes that God has given to the world a real and tangible Book that is the preserved and infallible words of God in printed form, and in the closest thing to a universal language - English. It’s called the Holy Bible, otherwise known as the Authorized King James Bible.

My previous Quote:
The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.


Quote:
The simple and undeniable fact is - Neither do you.
Muz, we all know that you do not believe that any Bible in existence in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God because you yourself have told us that you don’t believe the Leningrad codex or any translation in any language is without its corruptions and errors. I and many thousands of other Christians do believe we have the inspired and inerrant words of God in the King James Bible. Your merely telling us that we do not have an inspired Bible does not make it so. Has God abdicated His throne and left you in that position? I trow not.

Quote:
Muz, you first posted: “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.” Now you tell us that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God. Again, you sound just like James White here.

Quote:
Guilt by association, invalid debate tactic.
Muz, I find it amusing that you would label likening your position to that of James White “Guilt by association”. Is James White guilty? Yes, he is. James White IS guilty of not believing that any Bible is the pure words of God, and so are you.

Quote:
I have read the Bible through many times and I have never run across the verse that charges the church to discover the originals. I know I’m getting older and my mind doesn’t always retain things, so maybe I missed it or forgot where this “charge” was found. Would you mind directing us to where exactly God gave this charge to the church, chapter and verse please? Thanks.

Quote:
Maybe you should check 2 Peter 1:16-21.
Muz, this is another example of your reading something into the text that simply is not there. The text says: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Only a person with a wild imagination could read these verses and somehow come out with the idea that anywhere it is even hinted here that “the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God.”

I think you just made a silly statement about the church being “charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God”, and when confronted about it you decided to toss out a few verses in 2 Peter, hoping that nobody would notice that they teach no such thing as you claim they do.

The “more sure word of prophecy” referred to in 2 Peter was what God had already revealed in the Old Testament. There is absolutely nothing here about a “charge to the church to discover the originals from the scribal manuscripts”, as though they had somehow been lost or confused and we need to sort them out. Rather they were already fixed and established long before the events recorded in 2 Peter.




Quote:
The difference between the KJV and modern translations, as we've pointed out before, is that Erasmus used a VERY limited number of scripts, and didn't even have the entire NT in those manuscripts. Why didn't he go to get more? Evidence tells us that the church was pressuring him to get it done fast, so they could release a GNT before another church did so.
Muz, again, you’re not listening to what I clearly told you before. The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus. They consulted several different yet very similar printed Greek New Testaments - those of Erasmus, Stephanus and Theodore Beza. Plus many foreign language bibles, Hebrew texts and other Greek copies. You probably never even read the link I provided that dispels your oft repeated myth about Erasmus.

Here are some facts that refute your whole idea that the King James Bible is based on “a very limited number of scripts”. You just refuse to admit you are wrong. Here is the link again:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

Quote:
England just “happens” to be the one country from which we measure both the true universal time and direction (longitud), and serves as the standard for both. Just another ‘coincidence’, huh?

Quote:
You gotta be kidding me.
No, Muz, I am not kidding at all. There are a multitude of sound reasons for believing the King James Bible is the only true Final Written Authority, and I mentioned many of them in my first post.

I firmly believe that God is Sovereign in history and He gives us many indications of His working out His purposes. I think it far more than “just coincidence” that England serves as the place from which the whole world now measures both the correct hour (Greenwich time) and the correct navigational position for the whole planet. Much like how the whole world uses the 7 day calendar instead of a 10 day calendar. God is at work in history and has placed His mark upon certain things as being from Him. England is the place where the King James Bible was put together and English is the closest thing to a universal language today. I am not kidding at all. I am quite serious about this. Mock all you want, but I see it as more historical evidence that God has Standards and the King James Bible is His Book.

Quote:
The King James Bible is the ONLY one believed by thousands all over the world to be the inerrant and inspired words of God. No other bible has this distinction and no other Bible raises the ire and hatred of so many people.


Quote:
Hatred? Who hates the KJV? I think your movement has engaged in paranoia. I've never heard anyone speak with hatred towards the KJV.
Then maybe you should get out more. You ought to see the things people have said to me over the years about how horrible and inferior they think the King James Bible is. They think it is the worst translation out there. Here are a couple of “glowing recommendations” the liberal RSV gives the King James Bible (The RSV is based primarily on the same texts you guys use in your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, NET,etc.)

“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was MARRED BY MISTAKES, containing the ACCUMULATED ERRORS of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza 1589...We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and ARE FAR BETTER EQUIPPED TO SEEK TO RECOVER THE ORIGINAL WORDING of the Greek text.”

Hey, wait a minute. This sounds just like YOU! Yeah, they really love that ol’ King James Bible, don’t they? Also, from what I have read and heard, the Catholics will put their impramater on almost any modern bible version coming down the pike, but not the King James Bible.

Almost every where we look on the internet and in many books and articles by men like Daniel Wallace, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, John MacArthur, Bart Ehrman, D.A. Carson and James White all hypocritically talk about what a “fine” translation the King James Bible is and then they spend page after page trying to rip it apart by telling us how wrong it all is. No thanks, we can do without your fulsome praise and saccharine insincerity. Just tell us up front that you don’t believe any Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, and that each of you has placed your own minds as his Final Written Authority and be done with it.


Quote:
You ask for “proof” that the King James Bible is the pure, complete, preserved and infallible words of God. I never said I could prove it. Had you read my introduction carefully you would have seen that I said: “I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.”

Quote:
Well, I think I've brought a good dose of reality to this myth. Clearly the Greek text it is based upon isn't inerrant. Clearly there are places where the KJV translators didn't represent the original
Muz, it’s statements like these that make it apparent that you “Every Man For Himself Versionists” guys have no idea what you are talking about. You say something so utterly silly and groundless like “the KJV translators didn’t represent the original”. How do you know this? Can you even begin prove such a ridiculous statement? Do you have the originals or even a copy of them right there on your desk? What a joke. You pontificate your personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts, and have absolutely NOTHING to back them up with. By your own admission you guys are STILL SEARCHING for your “originals” buried out there among all those scribal manuscripts, and so far, in your humble opinion of course, you still don’t believe that any translation has gotten it right yet. Will you guys ever come up with an infallible Bible? Sure doesn’t look like it.



Quote:
But it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.

Quote:
So, you had a hidden agenda in engaging this debate. You had no intention of demonstrating that the KJV is inerrant, but rather wishes to try to put words in my mouth.
Muz, I was very upfront to the moderator who contacted me about debating the King James Bible issue with you. I told him it was going to be very obvious that your position is that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible. This IS what you believe. I also presented my case for why the King James Bible is the true Bible. I certainly did not entertain any false hopes that you would suddenly “see the light” and be converted into a Bible believer.

What you totally fail to accept is the simple logic that in order for you to “prove” that the King James Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant word of God, you yourself would have to have a copy of those “originals” you keep talking about and then be able to show us how the King James Bible doesn’t match them. Can you do this? Of couse not. All you have to offer us is speculation, hypothesis, and personal preferences, and all these coming from a man who doesn’t believe there is such a thing as an inspired and inerrant Bible anyway.


Quote:
That is what I have shown, here. Evidence rebuffs your belief, both in terms of your doctrine of preservation, and your faith in the KJV.
Muz, the only things you have shown us so far is an initial post about “Gods preserved words are in the originals”, and then when it was pointed out to you the obvious fact that there is no such thing as “the originals” you then came back with this statement about the Leningrad codex:

Quote:
“ For the Old Testament, the Leningrad Codex is considered the preserved Hebrew text. Among conservative scholars, this is fairly universally held. So, there's the OT.”
Muz, why did you even say this? It sounds as though you were actually about to take a stand of some kind and tell us that the Leningrad codex is the preserved Hebrew text, like you really had a tangible Bible with the original readings. But Nooooo. Not quite, huh?

When I posted a sampling of what the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible read, in contrast to the contradictory and conflicting modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, -

““MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).


you then came back with this priceless piece of back-tracking double talk:

Quote:
I'm not interested in the translational differences, as I don't consider any of them to be inerrant.

However, you've just put the KJV in with all the errant translations, as you've embraced a doctrine that means that if the mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds (and it is not), then the KJV has errors.
Which was the point of the original debate.”
Muz, if now you tell us you’re not interested in these “translational differences” (though most of them are just NUMBERS and not translational differences at all, and the O.T. examples are the Hebrew and KJB readings, then why did you post that baloney about the Leningrad codex “is considered the preserved Hebrew text. Among conservative scholars, this is fairly universally held. So, there's the OT.” when you don’t believe it for a moment?

You wouldn’t by any chance be trying to make us think you were an actual Bible believer, when you demonstrate again and again that you are not, are you?

You then have the unmitigated presumption to tell us all that you have proven the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God, when you have done no such thing. Not even close. Light years away, in fact.

So far all you have done is basically given us two really silly examples - John 1:18 where your NASB clearly teaches that there are two Gods, the one no one has seen and the “only begotten God” who explains the unseen God. NO Bible in history has read this way until we get to the NASB (unless of couse you want to count the Jehovah Witness New World translation, and they use this verse to bolster their idea that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the eternal God but rather the begotten god who was created by the unseen God).

Then we have your priceless remarks about Mark 4:31 where you actually accuse the Lord Jesus of lying or at least of being uninformed about the mustard seed. You told us:

Quote:
However, you've just put the KJV in with all the errant translations, as you've embraced a doctrine that means that if the mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds (and it is not), then the KJV has errors. Which was the point of the original debate.
The mustard seed is not the smallest seed. The NIV, oddly enough, translates the mustard seed as "smallest of all your seeds", which is actually the correct way to phrase it. Maybe the NIV is the inerrant text. (At least for this verse.)
Muz, in order for the NIV to come up with this reading (which you misquoted - the NIV actually says “which is the smallest seed YOU PLANT in the ground” in Mark 4:31), the NIV has to ADD to all Greek texts to come up with this meaning.

What is your problem with what the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV and almost every Bible out there tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ said about the mustard seed?

Would you please explain this for us?


Quote:
It's time you got out of your insecurities and into reality. To be honest, if you went to a liberal theologian and told them that you were holding the inerrant word of God in your hands, and showed them a KJV, you'd be ridiculed far more than if you told them that the originals were inerrant.

To be honest, I'm being kind in my treatment of your view, because I do value you as a brother in Christ.
Well, that is all very charitable of you Muz, but here at TOL I’m talking to an alleged “conservative, evangelical” and you sound just like the liberal. He doesn’t believe The Bible is the inerrant words of God and neither do you.

Quote:
God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

Quote:
Sounds like you're backing off of your view of preservation, as it's not really necessary for anyone to have the 100% preserved and inerrant word of God in their hands. If it's not necessary, then why insist on it, in the face of all the contrary evidence?
Muz, it is amazing to me how you can read things into statements that simply are not there. By no means am I backing off my views of preservation. How you could even think this just shows how desperate you are to find fault with anyone who really believes The Book. God has promised specifically and by many precepts to preserve His words in “the book of the Lord”. I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have such a book. Your side does not, as you have demonstrated time and again. This Book, the King James Holy Bible, is the Standard by which all others are to be measured. That is my belief. It matters not one whit whether you believe it or not. Your unbelief will not change the truth.



Quote:
And this doesn't include the errors and additions introduced by using a Greek Text based upon a VERY limited number of manuscripts that didn't even include the entire New Testament.
Muz, this statement of yours outright falsehood. You are either revealing your own ignorance of how the King James Bible was put together and what texts were used to do it, or your propensity for telling malicious and unfounded lies. Please get your facts straight.

You are so hardened in your present blindness that I seriously doubt you will even consider the other side of the story. But for those who want to find out more about the facts behind the texts used to put together God’s infallible Book here is a good article titled “Is the Byzantine text a late text.”

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Syriac.html


In closing for now, You once said that you too believe in the preservation of God’s words. I then asked you which verses you use to support this teaching. You never got back to me on this. So I will ask you again. Which verses do you use to support the doctrine of the preservation of God’s words? And also please don’t forget to get around to your understanding about that mustard seed thingy you seem so hung up on. Thanks.

All of grace,

Will Kinney



   
  (#13) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
April 29th, 2008, 07:40 AM

I apologize for the break. I was involved in a car accident on Saturday, and while everyone is OK, there have been a lot of issues to deal with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said.
My position is not at issue, here. Yours is.

Quote:
No, Muz. I am totally accurate when I label your position as being one who does not believe that any such thing as an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible exists in any language. I am a Bible believer who actually believes that God has given to the world a real and tangible Book that is the preserved and infallible words of God in printed form, and in the closest thing to a universal language - English. It’s called the Holy Bible, otherwise known as the Authorized King James Bible.
First, you misidentify my belief. Second, you're only stating your own belief, but have yet to provide any real evidence that your claim is true.

Quote:
My previous Quote:
The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.




Muz, we all know that you do not believe that any Bible in existence in any language is the complete and inerrant words of God because you yourself have told us that you don’t believe the Leningrad codex or any translation in any language is without its corruptions and errors. I and many thousands of other Christians do believe we have the inspired and inerrant words of God in the King James Bible. Your merely telling us that we do not have an inspired Bible does not make it so. Has God abdicated His throne and left you in that position? I trow not.
And your merely telling us that the KJV is THE inspired Bible does not make it so, either. Again, you continue to shift the focus away from your task, which is to demonstrate that the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

Quote:
Quote:
Muz, you first posted: “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.” Now you tell us that the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God. Again, you sound just like James White here.



Muz, I find it amusing that you would label likening your position to that of James White “Guilt by association”. Is James White guilty? Yes, he is. James White IS guilty of not believing that any Bible is the pure words of God, and so are you.
And thus you confirm your invalid debate tactic. -10 points for you. Probably another -10 for failing to address the point at hand.

Quote:
Quote:
I have read the Bible through many times and I have never run across the verse that charges the church to discover the originals. I know I’m getting older and my mind doesn’t always retain things, so maybe I missed it or forgot where this “charge” was found. Would you mind directing us to where exactly God gave this charge to the church, chapter and verse please? Thanks.
I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God charges the church with translating the original into other languages, either, yet you seem to think that this is the inspired work of God.

You fail your own tests.

Quote:
Muz, this is another example of your reading something into the text that simply is not there. The text says: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

Only a person with a wild imagination could read these verses and somehow come out with the idea that anywhere it is even hinted here that “the church is charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God.”
The church, here, is charged with preserving these words as protection against false teachers. However, since the NT canon hadn't been assembled, and wouldn't be for 300 years, inherent in this charge to hold on to the writings of the prophets and disciples of Christ is continuing to pursue what they actually said.

Once again, this points directly back to the problem with your view of preservation: You MUST admit that God failed to have any text containing 100% of His word (never mind errant or not) for 300 years.

In fact, no one before 367, and possibly up to 393, could make the claim to be holding a book that contained 100% of the Word of God, and only that.

So, let's deal with your task, and not something you've invented to try to create comparison.

Quote:
I think you just made a silly statement about the church being “charged with discovering the originals from the scribal manuscripts that have been preserved for us by God”, and when confronted about it you decided to toss out a few verses in 2 Peter, hoping that nobody would notice that they teach no such thing as you claim they do.
Again, you're turning the focus from your task. In my conclusion, I will be pointing out that the only item of evidence you will have presented

Quote:
The “more sure word of prophecy” referred to in 2 Peter was what God had already revealed in the Old Testament. There is absolutely nothing here about a “charge to the church to discover the originals from the scribal manuscripts”, as though they had somehow been lost or confused and we need to sort them out. Rather they were already fixed and established long before the events recorded in 2 Peter.
This is incorrect. There are five"we"s in this portion of Scripture: "We did not follow", "We made known", "We were eyewitnesses", and "We ourselves heard" are the first four. These "we"s are exclusive, meaning that Peter is referring to himself and a group that he has qualified, which does NOT include the readers.

The fifth is "we have the prophetic word." There is simply no reason to switch from an exclusive "we", referring to Peter and the disciples, to an inclusive "we", including the readers, especially given the context, where Peter wants to "be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind (v15)", and protecting them against "false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies (2:1)." Peter isn't referring solely to the OT, but referring to the writings of the disciples of Christ, as well.


Quote:
Muz, again, you’re not listening to what I clearly told you before. The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use the Greek text of Erasmus. They consulted several different yet very similar printed Greek New Testaments - those of Erasmus, Stephanus and Theodore Beza. Plus many foreign language bibles, Hebrew texts and other Greek copies. You probably never even read the link I provided that dispels your oft repeated myth about Erasmus.
LOL.. it's not a myth. The KJV is based upon the so-called TR. They may have consulted other versions,[ but just as W&H took Aleph and Bet to be primary, the KJV translators (interestingly enough, one of whom was known as the Drunken Dutchman, and yes it was for that reason) used the TR, even to the point of disagreeing with the Majority Text, when the TR did so.

Quote:
Here are some facts that refute your whole idea that the King James Bible is based on “a very limited number of scripts”. You just refuse to admit you are wrong. Here is the link again:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm
Let's examine one statement made in your link:

Quote:
Originally Posted by your link
Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament.
This is an admission that textual criticism was already necessary in Erasmus' time, and that Erasmus could not have come out with an inerrant GNT, as he presented alternative possible readings in his own text.

So, your TR is now in the same predicament as every other GNT that resulted from textual criticism.

You cannot start with salt water and come out with fresh water.

Quote:
Quote:
England just “happens” to be the one country from which we measure both the true universal time and direction (longitud), and serves as the standard for both. Just another ‘coincidence’, huh?



No, Muz, I am not kidding at all. There are a multitude of sound reasons for believing the King James Bible is the only true Final Written Authority, and I mentioned many of them in my first post.
ROFL! The selection of England as this location was purely a decision of man There is no special reason why England has to be this source.

And this would seem to be your view of the KJV, as well. There's no rational reason to think the KJV is the inerrant word of God, it's just the one you've chosen to believe in.

Quote:
I firmly believe that God is Sovereign in history and He gives us many indications of His working out His purposes. I think it far more than “just coincidence” that England serves as the place from which the whole world now measures both the correct hour (Greenwich time) and the correct navigational position for the whole planet. Much like how the whole world uses the 7 day calendar instead of a 10 day calendar. God is at work in history and has placed His mark upon certain things as being from Him. England is the place where the King James Bible was put together and English is the closest thing to a universal language today. I am not kidding at all. I am quite serious about this. Mock all you want, but I see it as more historical evidence that God has Standards and the King James Bible is His Book.
Well, that explains a lot. And gives the rest of us a good reason not to believe you.

Quote:
Quote:
The King James Bible is the ONLY one believed by thousands all over the world to be the inerrant and inspired words of God. No other bible has this distinction and no other Bible raises the ire and hatred of so many people.

Then maybe you should get out more. You ought to see the things people have said to me over the years about how horrible and inferior they think the King James Bible is. They think it is the worst translation out there. Here are a couple of “glowing recommendations” the liberal RSV gives the King James Bible (The RSV is based primarily on the same texts you guys use in your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, NET,etc.)[/quote]

I think you misinterpret what you hear. This is typical of those with a bunker mentality.

Quote:
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was MARRED BY MISTAKES, containing the ACCUMULATED ERRORS of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza 1589...We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and ARE FAR BETTER EQUIPPED TO SEEK TO RECOVER THE ORIGINAL WORDING of the Greek text.”

Hey, wait a minute. This sounds just like YOU! Yeah, they really love that ol’ King James Bible, don’t they? Also, from what I have read and heard, the Catholics will put their impramater on almost any modern bible version coming down the pike, but not the King James Bible.
Again, the whole guilt by association thing. -10 points.

I've already stated that I think the KJV is a decent translation. I have one and refer to it.

Quote:
Almost every where we look on the internet and in many books and articles by men like Daniel Wallace, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, John MacArthur, Bart Ehrman, D.A. Carson and James White all hypocritically talk about what a “fine” translation the King James Bible is and then they spend page after page trying to rip it apart by telling us how wrong it all is. No thanks, we can do without your fulsome praise and saccharine insincerity. Just tell us up front that you don’t believe any Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God, and that each of you has placed your own minds as his Final Written Authority and be done with it.
Sorry, but that's not the point of the debate. YOU have the onus to demonstrate the inerrancy of the KJV.

Quote:
Quote:
You ask for “proof” that the King James Bible is the pure, complete, preserved and infallible words of God. I never said I could prove it. Had you read my introduction carefully you would have seen that I said: “I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. This is exactly what I and many thousands of other blood-bought Christians believe it to be.”
If you're presenting a case, and have no proof, then you've failed.

Quote:
Muz, it’s statements like these that make it apparent that you “Every Man For Himself Versionists” guys have no idea what you are talking about. You say something so utterly silly and groundless like “the KJV translators didn’t represent the original”. How do you know this?
Because evidence tells us this.

Quote:
Can you even begin prove such a ridiculous statement? Do you have the originals or even a copy of them right there on your desk? What a joke. You pontificate your personal opinions as though they were indisputable facts, and have absolutely NOTHING to back them up with. By your own admission you guys are STILL SEARCHING for your “originals” buried out there among all those scribal manuscripts, and so far, in your humble opinion of course, you still don’t believe that any translation has gotten it right yet. Will you guys ever come up with an infallible Bible? Sure doesn’t look like it.
Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.

You make textual criticism sound as though there are thousands of places where things are unsure, and we can't rely upon it, and there are major problems.

There aren't.

First of all, the texts we have, including the Majority Text agree in the vast majority of places. Depending on who you talk to, around 95%. Of the rest, each text type has its own issues. The KJV inherits the issues of the Majority Text. I know you don't like to hear that, but there it is.

Modern texts are simply more accurate because the represent a wider source of copies of the original, and reflect later discoveries of earlier texts.

Quote:
Quote:
But it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.
If your only purpose in coming here was to try to justify your belief in the KJV by trying to denigrate and misrepresent my view, then you've wasted my time and yours, and you've done so under false pretenses.

Quote:
Muz, I was very upfront to the moderator who contacted me about debating the King James Bible issue with you. I told him it was going to be very obvious that your position is that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible. This IS what you believe. I also presented my case for why the King James Bible is the true Bible. I certainly did not entertain any false hopes that you would suddenly “see the light” and be converted into a Bible believer.
I had hopes that you would actually debate. That you would actually present evidence, rather than simply spouting your belief, and then trying to denigrate everything and everyone around you. To be honest, I've tried to be polite and civil in engaging debate, and you've done nothing but engage in guilt by association, misrepresentation, and dodging your task.

Your side should be very disappointed.

Quote:
What you totally fail to accept is the simple logic that in order for you to “prove” that the King James Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant word of God, you yourself would have to have a copy of those “originals” you keep talking about and then be able to show us how the King James Bible doesn’t match them. Can you do this? Of couse not. All you have to offer us is speculation, hypothesis, and personal preferences, and all these coming from a man who doesn’t believe there is such a thing as an inspired and inerrant Bible anyway.
Again, you're shifting the goalposts. IT is NOT my task to show that the KJV is in error. It is your task to show that it is God's preserved and inerrant words.

Quote:
Muz, the only things you have shown us so far is an initial post about “Gods preserved words are in the originals”, and then when it was pointed out to you the obvious fact that there is no such thing as “the originals” you then came back with this statement about the Leningrad codex:



Muz, why did you even say this? It sounds as though you were actually about to take a stand of some kind and tell us that the Leningrad codex is the preserved Hebrew text, like you really had a tangible Bible with the original readings. But Nooooo. Not quite, huh?
The Leningrad Codex is accepted by Scholars (including your KJV translators), as the most accurate text of the OT available today.

Quote:
When I posted a sampling of what the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible read, in contrast to the contradictory and conflicting modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, -

““MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???
And I pointed out that, on this basis, you make our Lord out to be a LIAR.

Bad doctrine.

Quote:
Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).
Again, dodging your task.

Quote:
you then came back with this priceless piece of back-tracking double talk:



Muz, if now you tell us you’re not interested in these “translational differences” (though most of them are just NUMBERS and not translational differences at all, and the O.T. examples are the Hebrew and KJB readings, then why did you post that baloney about the Leningrad codex “is considered the preserved Hebrew text. Among conservative scholars, this is fairly universally held. So, there's the OT.” when you don’t believe it for a moment?
Again, dodging your task.

Quote:
You wouldn’t by any chance be trying to make us think you were an actual Bible believer, when you demonstrate again and again that you are not, are you?
You wouldn't by any chance be trying to make us believe that you don't beat your mother anymore, are you?

Again, you dodge your task.

Quote:
You then have the unmitigated presumption to tell us all that you have proven the King James Bible is not the inerrant words of God, when you have done no such thing. Not even close. Light years away, in fact.

So far all you have done is basically given us two really silly examples - John 1:18 where your NASB clearly teaches that there are two Gods, the one no one has seen and the “only begotten God” who explains the unseen God. NO Bible in history has read this way until we get to the NASB (unless of couse you want to count the Jehovah Witness New World translation, and they use this verse to bolster their idea that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the eternal God but rather the begotten god who was created by the unseen God).

Then we have your priceless remarks about Mark 4:31 where you actually accuse the Lord Jesus of lying or at least of being uninformed about the mustard seed. You told us:



Muz, in order for the NIV to come up with this reading (which you misquoted - the NIV actually says “which is the smallest seed YOU PLANT in the ground” in Mark 4:31), the NIV has to ADD to all Greek texts to come up with this meaning.
Just like the KJV does with the Old Testament in correcting the numbers.

Again, you fall on your own petard. You disprove the inerrancy of the KJV by creating standards the the KJV fails.

Quote:
What is your problem with what the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV and almost every Bible out there tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ said about the mustard seed?
I prefer the original reading.

Quote:
Well, that is all very charitable of you Muz, but here at TOL I’m talking to an alleged “conservative, evangelical” and you sound just like the liberal. He doesn’t believe The Bible is the inerrant words of God and neither do you.

Quote:
God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.



Muz, it is amazing to me how you can read things into statements that simply are not there. By no means am I backing off my views of preservation. How you could even think this just shows how desperate you are to find fault with anyone who really believes The Book. God has promised specifically and by many precepts to preserve His words in “the book of the Lord”. I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have such a book. Your side does not, as you have demonstrated time and again. This Book, the King James Holy Bible, is the Standard by which all others are to be measured. That is my belief. It matters not one whit whether you believe it or not. Your unbelief will not change the truth.





Muz, this statement of yours outright falsehood. You are either revealing your own ignorance of how the King James Bible was put together and what texts were used to do it, or your propensity for telling malicious and unfounded lies. Please get your facts straight.

You are so hardened in your present blindness that I seriously doubt you will even consider the other side of the story. But for those who want to find out more about the facts behind the texts used to put together God’s infallible Book here is a good article titled “Is the Byzantine text a late text.”

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Syriac.html


In closing for now, You once said that you too believe in the preservation of God’s words. I then asked you which verses you use to support this teaching. You never got back to me on this. So I will ask you again. Which verses do you use to support the doctrine of the preservation of God’s words? And also please don’t forget to get around to your understanding about that mustard seed thingy you seem so hung up on. Thanks.

All of grace,

Will Kinney
I think it's time for closing statements. There isn't much more to say.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
  (#14) Old
brandplucked brandplucked is offline
Old Timer
 brandplucked's Avatar

 


Reputation:
brandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselvesbrandplucked is making a name for themselves
God's Inspired Book - the KJB, OR None at all - April 30th, 2008, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by brandplucked

Hi Muz. I was pretty sure you were an “originals onlyist”. You are aware of the well known fact, I assume, that there ARE no such things as 'the originals' and all present day scholars are in disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said.


Quote:
My position is not at issue, here. Yours is.
Muz, your position most definitely IS at issue here. You come on slipping and sliding and back-tracking about how “My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us.” Then when the obvious truth is pointed out to you that there IS NO original, you then tell us about the Leningrad codex as though it were your standard by which you sit in judgment on the King James Bible. But then we find out that you DON’T believe it represents the original readings, and that it too has defects.

Then you retreat to the UNBiblical idea that God has charged the church to discover the originals from the scribal manuscripts, and can produce no Scripture anywhere that supports this view. It is obvious that neither you nor the ‘scholars’ behind the modern Buffet versions can agree with each other, because they all chose different texts and readings from different sources and they ALL reject the Hebrew readings from the very same Leningrad codex you previously mentioned.

You then repeat your claim about the Leningrad codex:’ The Leningrad Codex is accepted by Scholars (including your KJV translators), as the most accurate text of the OT available today.”

Muz, all those different numbers I posted are the Hebrew readings and all are found in the King James Bible. I believe and defend every one of them. It is your modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard that reject many of these Hebrew readings as being corrupt or “scribal errors”. BUT, not even these modern perversions agree among themselves as to which Hebrew readings to reject and which to retain.

Your claim that “Scholars” accept it as the most accurate merely shows that NONE of your modern scholars actually believes it to be the preserved words of God. If they did, then they wouldn’t reject many of its Hebrew readings.

Here are those examples again. Just compare what the various modern versions have done with these Hebrew readings. They don’t even agree with each other.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV).




Quote:
No, Muz. I am totally accurate when I label your position as being one who does not believe that any such thing as an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible exists in any language. I am a Bible believer who actually believes that God has given to the world a real and tangible Book that is the preserved and infallible words of God in printed form, and in the closest thing to a universal language - English. It’s called the Holy Bible, otherwise known as the Authorized King James Bible.

Quote:
First, you misidentify my belief. Second, you're only stating your own belief, but have yet to provide any real evidence that your claim is true.
Muz, if I had been misidentifying your belief, then you would have long ago answered my direct challenge repeated several times to you. Tell us exactly where we can get a printed copy of these “preserved words” you so piously talk about so we can compare it to whatever we are using now and see the differences. You have utterly failed to do this simply because you do not believe such a thing exists. Only by producing such a Book and comparing it to the King James Bible could you even hope to show that the King James Bible is not the inspired and inerrant words of God. You clearly have done no such thing.


Quote:
I've already stated that I think the KJV is a decent translation. I have one and refer to it.
Muz, this means nothing - absolutely nothing. It’s just more fulsome praise from a Bible denier and a card carrying Bible Rummager who has placed his own mind and understanding above any book of the Lord. The simple fact is you do not believe the King James Bible nor ANY Bible in any language is the preserved, inspired, inerrant and complete words of God. Everybody knows this. A child can see it.




Then you go off on that Mark 4:31 verse again implying that the Lord Jesus either lied or was misinformed about the mustard seed being the least of all seeds. You tried to bolster your sagging position by referring us to the NIV reading which you called ‘inerrant, at least in that verse”. Then I pointed out to you that for the NIV to come up with their meaning they have to ADD to all known Greek texts to do it.

Quote:
What is your problem with what the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV and almost every Bible out there tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ said about the mustard seed?

Then, amazingly, you come back with this pious posturing:

Quote:
I prefer the original reading.
Muz, ALL Greek texts read just as the King James Bible and even the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, Darby, Young and the Holman Standard ALL translate it. The Greek texts agree with the reading found in the King James Bible, not the one in the NIV you referred us to.

You never even answered the question about what your problem is with this text. You just come back with this religious sounding piece of nonsense: “I prefer the original reading.” Muz, this IS the original reading! Who are you trying to fool, anyway?

Even a man like John MacArthur, who is by no means a King James Bible believer, easily explains why the KJB reading is the correct one and Jesus was not lying nor misinformed.

Here is his explanation.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2301.htm


More of Muz’s Musings


Quote:
Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine.

You make textual criticism sound as though there are thousands of places where things are unsure, and we can't rely upon it, and there are major problems.

There aren't.
Muz, this is pure Baloney. Where on earth did you get your “13 places” figure? Are you inventing these numbers from your own vivid imagination? That is so utterly over the top, out of the ballpark ridiculous that nobody who knows a modicum of the textual differences that exist today could possibly take you seriously.

Do we go with the RSV that omits some 45 entire verses from the New Testament that are found in the NKJV, plus another 2000 to 3000 other words besides? Or how about your NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus half of another 50 verses, plus hundreds of other words from the texts used by such versions as the NKJV? Or the ESV that omits even more whole verses than the NIV but not as many as the previous RSV? And all of them often and not in the same places reject the Hebrew readings. Who are you trying to kid?

Just take a look at the link that shows the differences between the NIV and the NKJV and it is abundantly clear that you are either grossly ignorant or an outright liar when you try to tell us that “there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading for the NT.”

(Repeated from before - apparently Muz missed it) I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the King James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see.

Here is the link: http://rockymoore.com/ChristianLife/...4/12/694.aspx9

Another link you obviously ignored is the first of 5 studies I have done myself which conclusively show the foolish fickleness of what you No Bible is Inspired guys call the “science of textual criticism”. There are five parts to this personal study and it is undeniable that your claim to 13 places is utterly and completely false.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Muz, I agree, it is about time for this discussion to close. As the polls show, fewer and fewer Christians believe that any Bible or any text in any language is the inerrant words of God.

God always has a remnant of believers, and if they believe The Book it is all by the sovereign grace of God. This is not to say that you nor all these other Christians who don’t believe in an inerrant Bible are not redeemed and forgiven. I firmly believe that God can and does use even perverted and inferiour bible versions to reach His people, but their faith will be weaker and under constant attack by the enemy of our souls who asks the very first question found in Holy Scripture - “Yea, hath God said...?”

I want to thank the Theology Online members for allowing me the opportunity to defend the Book as being the inerrant, preserved and complete words of the living God.


Regarding the Bible version issue, some have ears to hear and some do not. Though I am sure you do not see this verse or many other verses with the same eyes I do, I close with these precious words and their practical application from the inspired book of Jeremiah.

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jeremiah 6:16


All of grace,

Will Kinney



   
  (#15) Old
themuzicman themuzicman is offline
Over 4000 post club
 themuzicman's Avatar

 


Reputation:
themuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peersthemuzicman is well respected by his peers
May 1st, 2008, 07:15 AM

To be honest, I am very disappointed in Mr. Kinney's participation in this debate.

While the topic of the thread is " Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?", as evidenced by his last post, Mr. Kinney is more interested in denigrating what I believe that actually making his case.

And, in fact, Mr. Kinney stated that he cannot prove that the KJV is God's preserved and inerrant words. I don't need to say it for him. He said it himself. The only reason he holds to this is because he assumes it to be true.

Based upon this statement, the reader can only conclude that there is no rational or Scriptural basis upon which to state that the KJV is God's preserved and inerrant word of God. Regardless of whether you agree with my position or not, if you hold to this belief on the basis of what Mr. Kinney has presented here, then you hold to a belief that has no foundation, and is, in fact, false.

But let's examine some of the other issues:

Mr. Kinney's doctrine of preservation is, in essence, that I must be able to put the 100% accurate and inerrant word of God in his hands, and assure him that these are those words.

However, as we discovered during the debate, the church could not make such a claim for 300 years after the writing of Scripture was complete. For 300 years, Mr. Kinney's doctrine of preservation makes God out to be a failure, and His failure is failing to keep His promise of preservation.

Mr. Kinney points to numerical differences in the text, and shows how the KJV has corrected them. However, he fails to show a source in the original where the KJV translators got these numbers. He has no basis upon which to claim that they are correct. He only say that the KJV makes them the same, whereas other translations, which reflect the best manuscripts available today, do not. There's no basis for saying that the KJV number is correct. They're only consistent.

And, again, this goes back to preservation. If there is no one copy of the original that is the inerrant and preserved word of God, then Mr. Kinney makes God out to be a failure once again.

We've also discussed the Greek source for the KJV, and how Erasmus, while having access to many texts from the majority text family, did not use all of them, but used a half dozen or so sources, and those sources didn't include the ending of Revelation. Why didn't he use them? We don't know. But we can look at his work, and the history of it, and clearly state that Erasmus didn't use the vast body of the majority texts, but a few late manuscripts, which contained errors.

And, as a result, not even the Greek source of the KJV is without errors, and the KJV inherits many of these.


As I said above, this has been about Mr. Kinney denigrating my view of preservation (which I did not present entirely, because it is, in fact, NOT the topic of this debate, in spite of Mr. Kinney's claims. One only needs consult the thread title to see that.)

Yet, my view of preservation is one that is consistent with God's actions and the development of the text, both Old Covenant and New.

IF you read through the Scriptures that Mr. Kinney has presented, you see that God's word endures forever. And it does. But nowhere does the Bible say that these words will always be contained in a single, identifiable book which will only contain 100% inerrant words of God.

Indeed, much of the Christian world before the completion of the canon relied upon the LXX, a Greek translation of the original. A good translation to be sure, but certainly not what one would call a formal or literal translation.

Indeed, although the preservation of the Old Covenant texts (which did not even have vowels until the MT, around the time the Leningrad Codex was produced) was impressive, the copies were not without errors, as we saw with Mr. Kinney's numbers debate.

So, our doctrine of preservation needs to be one that reflects both Scripture and history.

Which is why we come to the doctrine of preservation through many copies, rather than one specific book, and, just as the church had to discover the canon of Scripture through much prayer and discussion, and did not even have a definitive list for 300 years, the work of discovering what God has preserved for us continues, even today, although recent work has made significant headway in this effort.

And this view of preservation, one that has God knowing and preserving His word, even if His church cannot yet put their hands on it entirely, is consistent both with Scripture and with history.

Mr. Kinney's doctrine of preservation is a man-centered view, requiring God to succumb to man's demands for an inerrant text, and then without Scriptural foundation or rational basis, grabbing a particular text, and assuming it to be "the one," in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Again, you need not agree with my doctrine of preservation. I admit to the possibility of being wrong. However, from the content of this debate, I think we can very safely conclude that King James Bible id not God's preserved and inerrant words.

I would like to thank Saul2Paul for arranging our debate, and thank theologyonline.com for hosting this event. Hopefully it has been informative and edifying to the body.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Kinney for his time effort in this debate. I hope our discussion allows us to remain brothers united in Christ.

Muz





I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
   
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.