Dean Burgon Quote

Hello RB! I agree this is an impotant pursuit. Please, try to visualize this for a moment: Those thousands of of historic documents that we call 'Greek manuscripts" were actually used by individual Christians as their own handwritten 'Bibles' (and they ALL had many differences). What would those early Believers have thought if they had been able to gather and compare their NT scriptures? Would they have been helplessly confused? Would their faith have been shaken?

The TR emerged as a 'sanitized' compilation of a relatively few of those manuscripts. But how can we be sure that not a single original inspired word was left out of the TR? What are the chances that of those thousands of Greek words that the TR corresponds exactly to the original inspired writings? (and I'm not claiming the CT is 100% accurate either.) And, since when has the mere majority of numbers ever determined absolute Truth?

 

Deacon asked;

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This was actually the verse that made me realize God's pure word is preserved when I was a young man. If God expects us to live by "every word" that proceeds from his mouth, it only seems fair and reasonable that a good and just God would provide "every word". I operate from the presupposition that God's preserved and pure word exists, and from this position must simply be identified.

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

In these verses God promises to preserve his word to all generations.

 

And nothing that us MV proponents believe contradicts those two verses.

 

I was simply answering Deacon's questions.

But Matthew 4:4 and Psalms 12:6-7 do show that both the Received Text used for the KJB and the Critical Text used for the MVs cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God. There are many differences. I found this article:

The KJB and MVs do not simply disagree in English, there are nearly 6000 differences in the Greek text used. So, both cannot be pure and preserved.

 

Here is part of an article from a fellow who said he found 4165 differences in the Greek texts between the TR and CT.

Source:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/stats.html

 

Sigh, this is such a waste of time. But do you know that there are also many differences between the various sources that make up the TR also?

Have you ever thought that maybe, just MAYBE, God might be a lot bigger and smarter than we might think and be able to preserve His Word in many ways, not just on one English translation?

 

Winman quoted:

I don't believe this is correct. The Greek text of the ERV of 1881/85 was published by Edwin Palmer- I posted a link to it last night. It is DIFFERENT than W&H's Greek text, as I understand it. If my Greek were not so rusty I could say for sure.

 

Many scholarly men disagree with you, here is an article showing how it is far more likely verse 7 was speaking of God's word and not the poor.

http://www.bibleword.org/preservation.shtml

And Psalms 12:7 is not the only verse in the Bible showing God will preserve his word.

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

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

I could show MANY verses beside these.

 

Yes, I have said here myself that there are nearly 40 versions of the TR. And I have said there is evidence that the KJB translators did not strictly follow the TR, there is evidence they used sources outside of it.

The exact texts the KJB translators used is not known. However, Scrivener's TR is closest, because he back translated. He developed his TR from the KJB.

It all comes down to this, did God preserve his pure word as he promised or not? If so, then the pure and preserved word of God is out there, and all we need to do is identify it. It really doesn't matter how that preserved and pure text came to be. That is what critics cannot grasp. They think they have to be able to prove which text is the preserved word with scholarship. You can study this issue your entire lifetime and you will never be able to prove preservation with scholarship. You either accept it by faith or not.

But you cannot say the CT and TR are the same, that is an absurd argument. So the KJB that came from the TR and the MVs that came from the CT cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.

 

None of those verses refer to English translations- nor any other.

 

Just a little correction winman.

Scrivener did not technically "backtranslate".

He recognized that the KJV translators used different Traditional Texts from the hands of different scribal families such as Beza, Stephanus, etc.

He compiled a text by piecing together (mostly Stephanus in my reading) the portions which varied from the Stephanus from the other available texts.

The Elzivir brothers had done the same thing later and it appears that he drew from their work as well.

It is possible that they (KJV translators) translated directly from the vulgate into Greek in a few places or used late dated mss which possibly had translated from the old itala (e.g. 1 John 5:7 - which I believe is apostolic btw) into Greek.

He did not "backtranslate" rather he pieced together or "quilted" his text from several sources resulting in a Greek text in 1895 that exactly (for the most part) followed the underlying English of the 1769 AV.

Incidently, KJVO have not done any different than Mormons who accepts by faith the translation of the Book of Mormon from the hands of Joseph Smith as the word of God.

In addition there are and have been Catholic "Vulgate Only" groups who have claimed that Latin is the new language of heaven.
They cannot be proven wrong as they aslo claim to believe this by faith.

Another problem KJVO have is that there are hundreds of significant differences between the different editions (1611, 1769, etc) and "authorized" publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, Nelson).

Some say the differences are minor, however one difference would invalidate any "ONLY" argument as God is not able to make the smallest variance in His word (not a jot or tittle).

So while some KJVO groups hold up the Oxford 1611 version and claim that it is the perfect inerrant word of God another holds up the 1769 Cambridge and makes the same claim. Both cannot be right.

They are therefore in the same boat as the MV folk (though they can never admit it) as the archetype of the AD1611 has been destroyed.

That God will preserve His word is indeed a promise. However is word has been given in either Hebrew or Greek and not a translation, even the KJV translators admitted to that:

No translation can be perfect and inerrant without the theory of "secondary inspiration" or "advanced revelation" which also requires the adherance to apostolic successesion as the prophets and/or apostles are the "only" authorised publishers (which - apostolic succession -both the Church of England and the Church of Rome claim for themselves).


HankD

 

Thank you Hank :thumbs:

 

Personally, from what I am reading, W&H are getting a bad rap.

But I'll let you wise men figure this all out while I continue to use my ESV, NIrV, NKJV and occasionally KJV. :thumbs:

 

I would say it does. Did God know of the rise of English? Of course he did, and he knows all other languages as well. Was God able to communicate to many different people who spoke many different languages on the day of Pentacost? Yes.

So, when God says he will preserve his word to all generations, it could forsee all languages that would come to be.

I am not a Ruckmanite. I do not believe that only the KJB is the word of God. I believe you can translate the RT into any language and if it is done accurately, you would have the preserved and pure word of God in that langauge.

I believe that if you translate the CT into any language it would be error. But that is my personal belief.

That the word of God can be accurately translated is proved by the scriptures themselves. When Joseph spoke to his brothers, he spoke in Egyptian, not Hebrew, but we have an accurate translation into Hebrew. When Nebuchadnezzar spoke, he did not speak in Hebrew, yet we have an accurate translation of his words into Hebrew.

When Jesus and the apostles spoke, it was in Aramaic, not Greek. But we have an accurate translation into Greek.

So, that the scriptures can be accurately translated into other languages is proved by the scriptures themselves.