Featured Is using newer versions the same as accepting alien baptism?

Really? Not Westcott and Hort?

 

I too am one of those crazy King James only guys brother! In fact, everyone in my church is which is the norm for a Primitive Baptist church. While of course I recognize it is a translation, not an original Greek manuscript, the primary reason for my position of using the King James comes from Psalm 12:6-7, "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" The King James Bible is by far the best selling and published book of all human history, thus if it wasn't an accurate translation, I do not see how one can say God's word was "preserve(d)... for ever". The King James is also one of if not the most literal translation in English.

From a textual argument standpoint, I believe the manuscripts the King James translators relied heavily on, the "Received Text", is the best manuscripts because #1 they represent the majority of ancient manuscripts # 2These ancient manuscripts were used consistently and with out interruption by God's believing people and #3 these manuscripts were never lost to the "sea of time". They were continually copied and recopied and show signs of being worn from use, thus indicating the confidence God's people placed in them.

On the other hand, many of modern version translations relied heavily on manuscripts are few and represent the minority of witnesses, have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt , an area known for false teaching, are in pristine condition, indicating they were never used by God's people.

 

Hi Brother,

There are plenty of other verses besides that one that contain the same promise of preservation, The Lord Himself proclaimed the reality of the providential preservation of the Scriptures of both Testaments during His life on earth: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17). He thus declared that the Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text.

Similarly, in His discourse on last things, the Lord assures His disciples that His promises would not only certainly be fulfilled but also remain available for the comfort of His people during that troubled period which shall precede His Second Coming. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).

One knows that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text through the logic of faith Since faith comes from the hearing of the Word of God (Romans 10:17), the Word of God will be displayed by the Scriptural principles of preservation.

Do you really believe God would will that the best selling and published book of all time that is supposed to be the word of God would be subject to poor translation to deceive His elect people for hundreds of years until "accurate" translations were later published?

 

Hi again brother,

I guess I may have misunderstood your position, I thought your position was that the King James is not the most accurate translation, thus those who use it only are making an error, in which case I would view that as a rejection of the principle of the preservation of the word of God. I came to that conclusion because you attacked the verse I cited to support preservation and you also attacked the other brother if he was KJV only adherent, if that is not your position I do apologize. If you could please perhaps reply and better clarify what you meant by attacking that brother if he was a KJV only adherent? I was not aware that all KJV only adherants maintain salvation can only be obtained through that version. Every brother and sister I know in all the churches I am associated with use the King James only in sermons and to read at church ( and I would imagine at home for their personal study too for the most part), but none of them maintain such a belief.

More specifically to your question as to if I believe the KJV only can result in "a person's salvation", I assume you mean by salvation "born again". If so, I don't believe in gospel regeneration, thus I don't believe any translation can make one "born again", but only a sovereign quickening independent of means including the preached word.

From time to time, I do consult other translations, especially due to some of the archaic words in the King James. I do not agree with how every word was translated in the King James. For example, as you yourself know from a prior exchange we had on a different thread, I do not agree how the King James translated the verse in John 3 as "born again", rather than "born from above". (I know brother you are in agreement with the King James translators on that particular word of the verse).

What version do you prefer and use the most brother?

 

The KJV needs to be put out to pasture. It has served its purpose in the past. Some folks can still profit from its pages today. But it's really passe.

It's interesting how some KJVO folks speak of not departing from the Old Paths. The newer translations are based on older texts whereas the KJV is based on an eclectic mix of newer texts.

 

The argument against this is the older manuscripts used by the newer version's survived because they weren't considered any good, thus they weren't used very often.

Also regarding the "older manuscripts" relied upon by the newer versions, "There are a few other old manuscripts, even including fragmentary Greek papyri, whose textual character seems to conform more to the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus than to the Textus Receptus. However, these all have been traced (by liberal and conservative scholars alike) to a probable source in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 2nd or 3rd century. The most influential man among the "intellectual" community of Alexandria was the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament (of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative), in contrast to the "Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come."

" With all his immense learning and zeal, however, Origen was a heretic. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and the Stoics. This led him into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially Genesis, and into denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even that of the bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of the world."

The King James relies on the Textus Receptus manuscripts, "For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."

Source (http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ )

 

Hi Brother TCassidy,

You asked in what post and quote did you attack a King James only brother, the quote is above and it is from post 2 of this thread.

 

Please elaborate --it sounds contradictory.

 

Elder Gilbert Beebe on this verse, " But our text says they are able to make thee (Timothy) wise unto salvation. But how, through the reading or studying of them? No, certainly not. Thousands had read and studied them, and had become as familiar with them as Timothy or Saul, but died in their sins. Paul does not say they were able, but which are able. Timothy, at the time this address was made to him, was manifestly a subject of saving grace, and Paul was persuaded that the faith which had dwelt in his mother and grandmother, dwelt in Timothy also. Being now a christian, having the faith of God’s elect, born of God, and taught of the Spirit, those Scriptures which he had only before known in their letter, and which had had no power to give him the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, are now, in his quickened, regenerated state, able to— to do what? To save him from the perdition of ungodly men, from the curse of the law, or from the wrath of God? By no means. From all these he was already saved, as Paul had affirmed in the first chapter, and ninth verse, of this epistle, was already accomplished. “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” What then are the Scriptures able to do for a saved, called, justified and divinely instructed Timothy? They are able to make thee wise unto salvation, that is, to that salvation in which he now stood, to enlighten his spiritual vision in more fully comprehending that glorious plan of grace and salvation in which he with all the election of grace was embraced, and thus save him from being like children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. The salvation unto which the Scriptures are now able to save thee (Timothy), is fully expressed in the next verse: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” They are not designed that the man of the world may be perfect, but the profit is unto the man of God, in furnishing him to all good works" http://www.asweetsavor.info/egb/2tim3_15.php

I didn't know you believe in gospel regeneration brother, do you? I thought you believed regeneration must precede faith, am I wrong? As concerning if the gospel itself brings immortality, scripture already answered that, " who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:" (2 Timothy 1:10), Notice brother it says the gospel brings "immortality to light" it does not say that the gospel "brings immortality". What is the difference? If I turn a light on in a room it only illuminates and makes visible to a person that which was already in the room, in the same way this is what the gospel does to those who believe it. Also, what about Cornelius brother, was he born again before or after the gospel preacher Peter arrived?

God bless,

Brother Joe