Can A Baptist Hold To A "Limited View" ON Biblical Inspiration?

God promised to preserve His word.( Ps. 12:6,7) His truth which is His word, (John 17:17) will endure to all generations (Psalm 100:5; 117:2)

God's true word will always be available somewhere on earth. There will always be corruptions and counterfeits of God's holy word. These modern versions do not all agree with each other and are constantly being "improved." Does God need our help? We shouldn't be questioning whether or not God preserved His words. That would be accusing God of lying.

Therefore do we have a preserved Text? Yes we do. It is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. These modern versions do not come from this stream, but from the Westcott_Hort and the Alexandrian stream.

 

Yes, thank you. All others are from the Westcott-Hort and the Alexandrian stream.

 

I know that the NKJV (New King James Version) and RAV (Revised Authorised Version) are not based on Westcott and Hort. I tried to do a search on Google for other versions that are not, but that wasn't very helpful. I found everything from sites telling me that all modern versions are, to some which said that the New World "translation", used by Jehovah's Witnesses is the only modern version that is based on W&H.

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I would remind you that at the end of my previous post, I wrote:

Of course I'm not suggesting that the godly 1611 translators believed such things; just that changes in the English language mean that words like "prevent", "coasts", carriage, "charity" and "meat" are no longer correct translations.
​

In other words, in the 17th century meanings of those English words matched the meaning of the original Hebrew or Greek. But because language changes, the 21st century meanings of those English words (and many others) do not match the Hebrew/Greek, and in that sense have become errors, though of course not through any fault of the translators.

Imagine someone reading 1 Peter 2.9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" (1Pe 2:9 AV)
​

The only words there that are no longer in everyday use in British English (I don't know about Australian, New Zealand, American or Canadian English ) are "ye" and "shew", and the reader could easily look them up in a dictionary, and discover that they are obsolete versions of the words "you" and "show".

But there are at least two words in that verse which, although still in use, have changed in their meaning:

"Generation", in that context, now means "people born/living at approximately the same time". But that is not the meaning of the original Greek word Peter used; that has various meanings, including: kindred, offspring, family, a group of individuals of the same sort. The reader knows the word "generation", but thinks it means (as it does in English today) "people born/living at approximately the same time". So he gets the mistaken idea that Peter is only addressing Christians who are alive at the same time as him.

"Peculiar" now means "odd, unusual, eccentric". But Peter is not telling Christians that they are odd people. The Greek word meant "purchased possession". (Indeed, the KJV itself translates it that way in Ephesians 1.14). The reader knows the word "peculiar", so he sees no reason to look it up in a dictionary, but thinks it means (as it does in English today) "odd".

I hope I have expressed myself more clearly this time.

 

So I assume if you were writing now, you would need to say:

Therefore do we have a preserved Text? Yes we do. It is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Textus Receptus, the King James Bible, The New King James Version, World English Bible, The Majority Text New Testament, Modern King James Version and LITV (both by Jay Green), American King James Version, 21st Century King James Version and Third Millennium Bible . Other modern versions do not come from this stream, but from the Westcott_Hort and the Alexandrian stream.
​

 

The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible, and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text,

 

Although the NKJV does not come from the Alexandrian text, neither is it based on the same Textus Receptus as the KJV. . If you do the research you will find that the KJV Old Testament is based on the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. But the NKJV is based on the Biblia Hebraica.

The NKJV agrees with the JW New World Translation in removing the Deity of the Spirit of God. Both the NKJV and the NWTcall him a helper.

David, do you believe we have a preserved Text?

 

You do not know what you are talking about.

 

Hi Mexdeaf, I welcome your evidence.

 

And Jacob, would you please show me the scripture in your KJV (even the KJV comes in different versions by the way--which particular KJV is the exclusive preserved word?) where it says that it is exclusively the preserved word of God for English speaking people? When you and your fellow members of the KJV only club can produce that verse I'll join your club. But, so far, and you and they have failed to produce. All we hear are the same old worn out arguments, perpetuated and believed by your group.

Oh and please do not say that God has promised to preserve His word as evidence. I certainly believe that He has but that does not mean that it is exclusively the KJV. Thank you.

 

Hi sag38. By the same token I can ask you which of the modern versions are correct since none of them agree with each other. When we look at the history and see the origin of the Alexandrian text and how Westcott-Hort used this Greek text which is largely based on the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus codexes, which by the way were tossed out for many many many years, you will understand the problems with these modern versions.

 

You are the one claiming that the KJV is the exclusive word of God for English speaking people. And, you have yet to produce the Biblical evidence. We are still waiting. All you have shared so far are Riplinger styled arguments and your opinion. Neither hold much sway when it comes to verifying the cultist nature of KJVonlyism. (Note: I am not saying anything negative against the KJV. My contention is with those who say the KJV is the only legitimate English Bible.)

 

NKJV and KJV--both translated from same texts

The NKJV was translated from the same original language texts as the KJV.

KJV defender David Sorenson admitted that the NKJV’s N. T. “is translated from the Textus Receptus” (Touch Not, p. 240). Sorenson also listed the NKJV as being “based upon the Received Text” (p. 10). In his list of formal equivalent translations, Einwechter included the NKJV along with the KJV and he noted that the NKJV is “based on the TR“ (English Bible Translations, pp. 17, 29). KJV-only author Samuel Gipp acknowledged that the NKJV “is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts” (Answer Book, p. 104). Gary Zeolla confirmed that the NKJV is “based on the same Greek text as the KJV, the TR” (Differences, pp. 20, 66). Kerby Fannin listed the NKJV and MKJV as being “based on the Received Text” (While Men Slept, pp. 469-470).

Arthur Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, wrote: “The text of the New King James Version itself is the traditional one used by Luther and Calvin, as well as by such Catholic scholars as Erasmus, who produced it. Later (1633) it was called the Textus Receptus, or ‘TR’” (NKJV in the Great Tradition, p. 111). In note 9, Farstad commented that “deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text” (p. 116). Farstad quoted the following from the guidelines for the making of the NKJV: “the Traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used” (p. 34).

Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price, who was executive editor for the NKJV's Old Testament, observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307).

 

No, actually there are many more. The People's New Testament is TR-based, the ALT is MT-based, the D-R is Latin-based, Lamsa's is allegedly Peshitta-based, etc. You speak in overly generalized terms.

 

Just how are we applying "plenary, verbal inspiration"? It sounds like too many are applying it to all the translations passed down over time, rather than to the original mss.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What errors? There are no errors.