Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

Believe me, I understand this. And I have done my share of criticism of two of the three main Japanese translations, one because it consistently mis-translated the Greek future ("This same Jesus may come in like manner") and the other because it is a dynamic equivalence, confraternity version.

Fundamentalists have stood against bad versions ever since the RSV came out in the '50s. I have a number of pamphlets criticising bad versions from back in the day. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying that human preservation comes first. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

I'm talking about what Mark Twain said about the weather: "Everyone's always talking about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it." So to every vocal KJV defender I would say, "Fine. You're for the KJV. Maybe you're for the TR. What are you doing about it other than talk? Are you supporting a missionary translation with your money? Have you given anyone a Bible lately? Have you ever smuggled Bibles? Do you ever volunteer to help a printing ministry with labor, binding, trimming and the like?"

I would ask this of the author of the OP, but he seems to have absconded and abandoned his thread. :smilewinkgrin: Makahiya, are you all talk, or do you put your money where your mouth is and support missionary translations?

I would say the same thing to the KJVO critics out there, too. I have many friends on both sides, and they keep giving me books. (For which I am grateful, since I love books!) But I hope they also are not just talking, but supporting Bible translation.

 

ANY translation is 'corrupted' though, in the sense that we do not have any that are perfect!

Again, NOT needed to be error/mistake free, as we can still have full confidence in the truth that God preserved His word inerrantly in the originals, and that the texts used as the basis to translate off from are essentially those originals to us, so The Kjv and MV are ALL word of God to us in English!

Again, those holding to KJVO mistake inerrancy and infallibility, so that forces you to HAVE to have a perfect error free English version!

 

great point! we can post all over the place and talk, but what am I doing to get the bible out to others who need to hear it?

 

How do you know this? Tell me how you know for a certainty the King James Bible is not inerrant. I would love to hear your answer.

What a bunch of pure garbage. How can you have confidence in something you believe is full of error?

You keep saying the originals are inerrant. There are no originals!

You and others must think people are idiots, you keep saying the originals are inerrant when you know perfectly well that the original autographs do not exist and have not existed for nearly 2000 years. This is an absolutely dishonest and false argument.

If your view is correct, then we cannot have confidence in even one single verse in all the Bible, because we do not have one single verse from an original autograph.

If folks are fool enough to listen to your nonsense, they deserve to be deceived.

 

What Bible? According to you ALL versions are full of errors.

And our church does support ministries that sends Bibles into China and other lands.

 

You have misunderstood me!

NOT stating the English Bible has "many errors/mistakes" in them!

NONEof them though are without ANY errors or mistakes in them..

they Do NOT have to be inerrant as the originals in order to be infallible and authoritative to us though!

Do you also hold that ONLY the TR is to be used as basis to translate from also?

 

Trust me, I can see you coming from ten miles away. I understand you.

How do you know? Have you ever seen the original autographs and compared them? How do you know the gospel is even in the scriptures? How do you know Jesus died for our sins? Have you seen the original autographs? Maybe some scribe inserted all that into the scriptures. What about all of Paul's writings? Have you seen the originals? How do you know somebody didn't insert all those into the scriptures?

How can you possibly know this when you do not know a single verse of the original autographs?

How do you know this if you don't know what the originals said?

Yes, but I believe God has preserved his word through the ages. I believe the TR is the preserved text, preserved by faithful copies of the word. And over 95% of all extant texts support it.

You don't get it, if your view is correct, then you have no way to know if even one word of the Bible is true. You have no idea what was in the original autographs, and you do not believe copies and translations could be inerrant. For all you know, the scriptures could be absolutely different than what we have today. You have no way to know if your view is correct.

 

Do you know what he exact wording in the originals were? You HAVE to knwo that in order to hold to the KJVO viewpoint!

 

No I don't, I simply have to believe God's many promises to preserve his word.

Mat 5:18 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.

Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law.

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.

God said his words were pure, as silver that has been tried seven times, and that he would preserve them forever.

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

See, you don't get it. I believe what God said, he has preserved his word. I don't try to understand HOW he did this, I simply believe it. Now all I have to do is find his preserved word. There are two lines of scripture, the Received Text and the Critical Text, I believe the Received Text is the preserved word of God.

And I believe it is without error. Jesus said that we shall live by EVERY word of God, so EVERY word must be there. The scriptures also warn against adding or diminishing to God's word, so obviously it must be possible to know God's exact words.

But you don't believe these promises, you make the false claim that the original autographs are preserved and inerrant when you know very well THEY DO NOT EVEN EXIST.

Unfortunately, there are lots of simple folks who fall for this obvious lie.

 

How did the recieved/MT/CT texts get done? Were not ALL of them compiled by fallible persons, working from texts that had been 'corrupted" to some extant, so how did the received text become perfect and innerrant?

Since we KNOW that NO repytable textual scholar agree the TR was error free and perfect, exact record of the originals, how can ANY translation off them be such, unless the translators had divine inspiration to do that?

That would also apply to ANY greel text used for any translation...

did God give the KJV team divine inspiration to do their job or not?

 

Were the originals written by infallible men? Was Moses infallible, or did he kill a man? Was David infallible, or did he commit adultery? Was Peter infallible, or did he deny the Lord three times?

You're gonna have to come up with a new objection, this one doesn't fly.

How did God preserve his word? I don't know, but I believe it. I do not know how God spoke the universe into existence either, but I believe that too.

And I don't care what "scholars" think, I believe the word of God. God promised to preserve his word, and I believe it. You should try it sometime, it's called FAITH.

 

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired all of the original documents, in such a hashion worked through fallible men, so that their finished product was without errors at all, was inerrant?

God promised that the originals would be error free, but ONLY those!

 

No, God said ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION of God, not just the original autographs.

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


Note that Paul said Timothy knew the holy scriptures from a child. Do you think Timothy had the original autographs?

Does Paul say the "original" scriptures are given by inspiration of God, or "All scripture" in verse 16?

Were copies ever called scripture in scripture? YES.

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

You have a real problem here, as scripture itself says the Ethiopian eunuch was reading "scripture". Most scholars agree he was reading the Septuagint, so it was both a copy and a translation!

So, here you have a copy AND a translation of the original autographs, and the scriptures themselves call this text "scripture" twice. And if it was scripture, then 2 Timothy 3:16 says it was given by inspiration of God.

Are you going to quit telling people falsehoods now that you know this? Or will you continue mislead people?

 

You will disagree, of course, but contending for the KJV while calling other versions "of the Devil", "corrupted", etc. does not equal "contending for the faith".

 

It is your KJV-only arguments that do not fly or that are not sound. Perhaps you don't care about the truth since you are using incorrect reasoning.

It was not claimed that Moses was infallible. Moses and other prophets were fallible. Moses and the prophets received Scriptures by a miracle of inspiration of God.

The Scriptures do not teach that the copying of manuscripts was by a miracle of inspiration that prevented the possibility of man making any mistakes in copying. There would have been no need for the commands and instructions about not adding to and not changing the words if the copying could only occur perfectly by a miracle.

You may be uninformed, but it is an established fact that the Greek NT manuscripts from which the printed Textus Receptus editions were made had errors in them [errors introduced by copiers]. Erasmus, a Roman Catholic, wrote in a couple of the Greek manuscripts [that he intended his printer to use in making a printed edition] his corrections of some of those copying errors.

There are no Greek manuscripts that are word for word in agreement with any one of the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus.

Are you demonstrating proper belief in the Scriptures when you disobey them by making false accusations against believers who disagree with your unproven opinions?

 

Matthew 5:18

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The phrase “the law or the prophets” (Matt. 5:17) was used to denote the entire Old Testament Scriptures. The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the exact specific words that were given by God in the specific original languages in which He gave them, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to different words that are used in translations. When the positive principle for the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages given to the O. T. prophets was indicated, there was no need to state again the same principle for the preservation of the additional Scriptures given to the N. T. prophets and apostles. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The Scriptures or oracles of God committed to the Jews or Hebrews were in the original language (Rom. 3:1-2). “The scriptures of the prophets” were in the original language (Rom. 16:26). The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, Rom. 16:26). The actual languages in which God said or revealed His words are the original languages. The actual languages of the specific, precise, pure words given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of God are the original languages. Homer Massey affirmed: “God has preserved His Word in the languages in which it was originally written” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Jan., 1981, p. 2). In his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus wrote: “Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod), corresponding to the English i” (p. 100). Broadus noted: “No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle, --in the Greek ‘horn,‘ --denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded. Compare Luke 16:17. The word ’horn’ in this sense would not be understood among us, and so ’tittle’ (a very small object) was wisely used by Wycliffe, and retained by all subsequent translators” (p. 100). Marvin Vincent affirmed that “jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet” (Word Studies, I, p. 40). It would only be in the original languages that a Hebrew letter and the part of a Hebrew letter could be preserved.

 

God's Word commands believers to "contend for the faith," not for one certain English translation (Jude 3). Arlin Horton wrote: "The words 'once delivered' specify the first century time frame when the New Testament was written" (PCC Update, Winter, 2001, p. 6). The “once delivered” words did not need to be delivered again in 1611. KJV-only advocates may contend for the faith, but they sometimes seem to act as though the faith consists mainly of "use only the KJV and above all do not use any other translation." Should believers contend only for the modern KJV-only version of Christianity?

Contending for the faith should emphasize timeless truth, not recent man-made ideas such as the modern KJV-only view (John 8:32). If contending for the faith demands a defense of the KJV, believers before 1611 could not have contended for the faith. Did the KJV translators fail to contend for the faith when they disagreed with and refuted the one-perfect-translation-only view of their day?

Believers are to accept apostolic, scriptural faith or doctrine and are to teach and commit it to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2). Was the modern KJV-only view taught by the apostles? The KJV-only view seems to be an ineffective effort to turn back the clock. In addition, it is clear that contending for the faith and committing it to others does not mean attempting to coerce or force others to accept your view.

 

You are correct, I completely disagree with you. The scripture cannot both CONTAIN and OMIT the last 12 verses of Mark 16 (just one of MANY examples). One text must be correct and the other corrupt, or else both are corrupt, but it is impossible that both be correct.

I personally do not care which version you wish to read, you are an adult and can make your own decisions. But I would warn young or new believers about what I consider corrupt versions.

 

Does it occur to you that I would not be debating with you unless I cared? And it is your OPINION that I am using incorrect reasoning.

Agreed.

I would disagree, men were commanded to make perfect copies, just as Moses and the other prophets were commanded to perfectly write down what God told them.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deu 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

God commanded that any king would make a COPY of the law. Deu 4:2 would of course apply to these copies, they were not allowed to add to or diminish from God's law. This is why the Received Text and the Critical Text cannot BOTH be correct.

Oh, I am sure that out of the several thousand manuscripts there were some errors. That does not prevent scholars from determining what the correct text should be. Of the nearly 1800 texts that included Mark 16, all but 3 included the last 12 verses. This is tremendous evidence to support these 12 verses should be included in scripture. You KNOW this to be true.

I am sure this is true, but as stated before, there are good ways to determine what the correct text should read.

You keep calling yourself a believer. What do you believe? You believe the original autographs WHICH DO NOT EXIST are inerrant. That is a joke and you know it.

Saying you believe in something that does not exist is equal to saying you do not believe at all. You have no idea what the original autographs said, so you have no idea if the King James (or any document) is inerrant or not.

 

I wonder how many sermons on the last 12 verses of Mark you have heard in your life? I can count them on two or three fingers and one of them was by a KJVO pastor about why those verses belonged there and how other versions are corrupt if they don't have them.

I wonder what truths are taught in the last twelve verses of Mark that are not taught in other places in the Bible if they are excluded? Let's see:

Jesus appears to Mary Magdelene - found in John 20:14 as well.

Jesus appears to two disciples on the road - found in Luke 24.

Jesus appears to the eleven, chastises them for unbelief and commissions them to go to the world - found in Luke 24.

Jesus is taken up into Heaven - found in Mark, John and Acts.

Nothing missing.

And by the way- the ESV has the last twelve verses of Mark in it.

Young new believers need to read the Word of God in a version that they can understand - not be told that whatever version they are reading is corrupt.

I had a KJVO friend admit to me that he learned more about the Bible by reading the NIV (which he understood) when he was a new Christian than he has since he changed to the KJV (which he struggles with understanding) under duress from his KJVO pastor.

That is sad.