Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

I notice that Douay Rheims seems to be based on TR. That's why DR and KJV are similar in many spots.

I checked the followings:

Matthew 27:35 - B(Vatican) A(Alexandrian), Aleph(Sinai), Majority - all do not have it.
TR- has it

Luke 7:31 - A (Alexandrian), B(Vatican), Aleph(Sinaiticus), Majority - all these have no "Lord.." but TR has it, KJV has it.

Acts 7:37 - Aleph, B, A, half Majority - eme
TR & half Majority - him ye hear

Acts 8:37 - A,B,C, Majority - none
TR - has it.
This is very famous verse showing the
accuracy of TR.


I think you don't know very much about the manuscripts and the texts.

TR was edited in 1516 and re-edited in 1522. D-R must have reflected TR and that's why both KJV and D-R are similar each other.

William Tyndale translated TR into English much earlier in 1525. Therefore D-R may have referred to it.

 

This most arrogant position, that God has gathered together his words and put them in a book called the KJV and has there inspired them and preserved them for our day and age is contrary to Scripture and has the very makings of a cult. Even those who dearly love the KJV know the danger of such a position. The KJV is not infallible as the above implies. God makes no mistakes. Yet the KJV is full of mistakes. Thus either you must (once the evidence is given) admit that the KJV is not inspired, not inerrant, or admit that you serve another god, a god who is less than perfect. Which is it gentlemen?

Consider well this quote:

The above quote is from the second chapter of David Sorenson's book, "Touch Not The Unclean Thing," He quotes extensively from D.A. Waite's research. It can be easily seen that there are major differences, substantial differences; differences affecting both history and doctrine between the various editions of the KJV. God makes no mistakes, but the translators and revisors of the KJV do. It is not an inerrant book. And therefore certainly not inspired or infallible.
DHK

 

The question was directed at you personally.

Do you accept Mark 16:17,18?

Is there a time limit on Mark 16:17,18?

Mark 16:17,18, "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Do you believe?

If not, then, when did you decide to stop believing scripture.

There are those in the US who would call you a heretic because you do not currently practice those things. They claim to believe that passage in Mark. So are you a heretic according to them?

I accept its authenticity just not as written scripture. It seems as though you do. So if you do then you must also accept its message and live up to what it teaches.

 

Do you prove the promise in Mark 16:17,18?

Mark 16:17,18, "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

If you have not proven that Mark 16:17,18 then you do not believe. It says, "These signs will accompany those who have believed;"

Are you one who has believed?

 

Hi gb, you are at least correct here. The "every man for himself" approach to Scripture is like this. One scholar likes or prefers this reading and another that one. The Nestle-Aland text keeps on changing from edition to edition, and none of the modern versions agree all the way through with any other in both texts and meanings.

Here are some quotes from some scholars who have followed the methods you recommend. They are at least a bit more honest and logically consistent in their conclusions.


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."

Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."

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."

And R. 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."

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Jesus Christ

Now, who are you going to believe?

Will K

 

Do you prove the promise in Mark 16:17,18?

If you have not proven that Mark 16:17,18 then you do not believe. It says, "These signs will accompany those who have believed ;"

Are you one who has believed? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do believe those verses are true.
The reason why I don't practice it, is because my belief has not reached that level yet.
In fact I have been praying for verse 8 of Matthew 10 for long time, because it is the way how the disciples preached the Gospel.
From my prayer for a long time, what I have found are several things:
1)Such miraculous sign appears in the level of faith which can cope with States,
2) Secondly Jesus asked the people not to ask for it. It is not because such request will not be answered, but because it will be answered surely and therefore one doesn't have to ask.
3) There is no other Gospel for that, but the same Gospel which we accepted for the salvation works also for the miracles, and these FOLLOW out faith, not to be asked.
4) This faith has been lost almost 1900 years as far as I know, because I have not heard about anyone else than the disciples or next generation who performed the miracles.

5) A little less sign lower than such miracles mentioned in Mk 16, were performed from time to time. i.e. David Livingstone experienced the situation similar to it when a viper penetrated into his tent, some people are healed in miracuous way. I don't trust those guys like Benny at all, but among the true believers there are smaller scale miracles from time to time.

6) The bigger scale miracles mentioned in Mark or other Gospels could happen in our days too, which I have been praying for.
As I said, this is related to Nation-wide scale and that is why we knew about such thing that happened among Israelites. Israelites were educated about it and they have very strong faith once they convert to the Lord.

7) This is related to what Lord said:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

This is not pre-requisite for the salvation, but for working for Him.


Indeed, I have been spending a lot of time for this matter and believe God will show His mercy and power soon.

Therefore Bible verses are not the problem but the problem exist in the weakness of our faith.

[ January 05, 2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

Hi DHK, would you mind pointing out for us the verse that teaches the position you presently hold about the preservation of Scripture? "Only the originals"? Verse please.

"In a multitude of variant readings"? Verse please.

"In the conflicting and ever changing NASB, NIV, RSV, NKJV"? Again, the verse please.

You then go on to discuss the "printing errors" issue, which is really the last shallow foxhole you No Bible is inerrant guys run to, in an effort to prove that No Bible is the 100% true words of God.

You probably won't read it, but I have written an article about the printing errors and corrections in the history of the King James Bible. Even the American Bible Society acknowledged that the KJB has never changed its underlying texts - just minor printing errors and updating of spelling.

Here is the article.

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

You are actually cutting your own throat and only arguing for "No inerrant Bible on this earth".

Will

 

The verses that talk of preservation were true in 1605, 1000 and 500 A.D. I believe they are still true in the same way today, and did not change meaning in 1611.

 

Do you prove the promise in Mark 16:17,18?

Mark 16:17,18, "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

If you have not proven that Mark 16:17,18 then you do not believe. It says, "These signs will accompany those who have believed;"

Are you one who has believed? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi QB, Again, you are reading something into the text that is not there. The verses say "these signs shall follow them that believe" and this is all it says. Did those signs follow them that believed? Of course they did.

But the verse does not say "These signs shall follow every one that believes throughout the whole history of the entire church till I come again in glory and power." The verses simply do not say what you are reading into them.


By the way, if these verses are not part of Scripture, then why do your nasb, niv, esv, Holman versions continue to put them in their bible versions? Do your "science of textual criticism" bible versions add words that are not part of Scripture? If so, then how come you think they are "closer to the non-existent and never seen by you originals"?

Aren't those verses that speak about not adding nor taking away from God's words still in your modern versions? Or don't you take those verses very seriously?

If Sinaiticus and Vaticanus be your gods, then serve them. Stop sitting on the fence.

Will

 

Hi gb, you are at least correct here. The "every man for himself" approach to Scripture is like this. One scholar likes or prefers this reading and another that one. The Nestle-Aland text keeps on changing from edition to edition, and none of the modern versions agree all the way through with any other in both texts and meanings.

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."

</font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you in most but disagree with you in another. At the seminary I graduated form we had classes which evaluated textual variants and told the UBS and NA folks why. There were times when we saw them make changes. To me that says they are willing to say the change should be made. That is reasonable and honest I believe.

That kind of honesty and integrity lets me know they are not perfect and are willing to learn. It also assures me that they want the best text possible considering the vast array of documents available. I am willing to put more trust in a committee who I believe tries to do the right thing.

You are right it can lead to skepticism. I have seen the exact opposite happen when I explain about the process of translation and textual criticism.

At one time I was at a fork in the road and was trying to decide if I wanted to deal with textual criticism as a vocation. I decided it was more important to make disciples and teach them. I think I made a wise decision. As I look back over the years I have trained about 300 people to share their faith and make disciples. Some of those people I led to Christ and others were doing nothing in a church. Some had been Christians for along time but needed someone to help them grow. Of those people I trained many who are missionaries, church pastors and staff in churches and parachurch organizations. That is the reason why it is not a big issue with me if a person reads the KJV, NIV, NKJV, ESV, NAS, NASU95 or any other good translation. The fact is thgat if most of the Bible were removed there would be enough to give a person instruction to be able to live the Christian life and make many disciples. The church in America is spending so much time arguing and fighting over matters which are so insignificant while others are going to hell because the church is too lazy and afraid to share its faith boldly.

I was dismissed from a church which claimed to believe the Bible but allowed the local Mormon bishop to preach at local events they sponsored all in the name of fairness. The deacons thought the man was a Christian. I told them he hadn’t taken that kind of stance. That is the kind of battle the church in America is facing. We are faced with a church in America which says it believes the Bible but does not practice what it already knows. The battle is not over which Bible but obedience to Christ. It is a battle over the lukewarmness called conservative theology versus radical Christianity.

I have personally seen people who say they believe the Bible and teach Sunday School shake when I have challenged them to go with me to do ministry and share their faith.

Why do you think the Mormons are growing by about 200 per week with people who are Baptists and Catholics? They don’t know their Bible and practice their faith.

I believe that Christians will be divided by not conservative and liberal but rather lukewarm and radical.

The issue of inerrancy has been an issue for the last several centuries at the same point in time of each century. So it is not a new issue. (When was 2 Tim 3:16 written?). It was an issue each time a new translation came out. There were those who were against any translation and were executed.

 

Look at 2 words: Easter and Passover. Please explain why Catholics murdered William Tyndale (Easter was there in Tyndale Bible)? Let's look at "TODAY" bibles saying "passover" instead of Easter. Please explain why Catholics said that the KJV is wrong to translate "Easter" instead of 'Passover"? Which one do you stand with? Catholics or Tyndale?

Not always!

That is correct.

That is DE rathar than FE, but these words in UBS are perverting translated for foreign bibles, for example of translating from "cup" to "pain." Ask yourself, does the cup mean pain?

 

Have we not covered Acts 12:4 enough at I Presuppositionalism?
I brought the copy of it:


http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3540/20.html?

DHK said:
Would you accept other Bibles in other languages translated from the textus receptus? Why or why not?
DHK said:
I have wondered why so many Modern Versions are based on other texts than TR, why they are contaminated with Septuagynt, different from Masorah .

If there had been any other English version than KJV, which is based on the same bases as KJV, then we could have reasonably discussed after reviewing it. If it had happened, there would have been no debate like this.

BTW, DHK, I am thirsty of your answer on the contradiction of Acts 12:3-4. Only after you can reasonably explain about the contraction, your argument that KJV has an error in that verse start to be valid.

My study shows (as you could see in the sites which I mentioned) that:
1) Ishtar took place 1 day after Pesach, Pesach 14th of Abib month, Ishtar 15th of the same month. Ishtar lasted 8 days as well.
2) Ishtar was much more popular throughout the Middle East world, while Pesach was celebrated by religious people of Israel.
3) Kings believed that Ishtar had the authority to appoint the kings and to dismiss them, and therefore Herod would have paid very much attention to it.
4) Even King Solomon worshipped Ishtar and didn't care about the Passover, but King Herod was more faithful with Passover?
5) Days of Unleavened Bread had the focus on the first day, Passover, then I believe that Ishtar had the focus on the final day, as a finale, with a lot of Orgy's
6) Both Pesach and Ishtar festival were called Pascha in Aramaic I can imagine nobody would have called it as Ishtar because it was holy to them.
7) Then it was re-translated as PASXA in Greek.

Otherwise, it would be very difficult to understand the contradiction and the whole situation in Ac 12.

In my view, KJV is all the time attacked from wrong angle, from PLuralism, from Distrust on the Word of God, based on the manipulated texts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Everyone here can see how much people are to call Day of Resurrection as Easter Day, at the other thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3573/3.html?

Celebrating Easter is an insult to Christ.

Easter is the word transliterated from Oster or Ishtar, which means the name of pagan Goddess.

Still even today, there are so many people who want to commemorate Easter (Ishtar) and refuse calling it as "Resurrection Day".
Even calling Resurrection Day is not necessary but, if people really want to celebrate the Day of Resurrection, they should call it Resurrection Day instead of pagan Goddess name, which is a sub-division of Satan.

 

Is observing "Sunday" (the pagan day of the Sun) an insult to Christ?

 

You can ask that question by making other thread. The reason why I posted about Easter here was because Acts 12:4 became the issue where KJV in the only one different from all the other versions.
Therefore your question is not relavent to the main subject here.

 

Though you may be interested, the question is moot and has no bearing on the discussion on hand. The discussion is not one of theology. The discussion is one of translation in this particular case. The word "pascha" is translated every time "passover." It is used 29 times in the New Testament and every time except this one time (out of an eccleisiastical prejudice) it is translated Easter. "Pascha" never means "easter." It always means "passover." If you translate it anything other than "Passover," you have wrongly translated the word. It is as simple as that.
Pascha means passover. Period.
DHK

 

DHK, I didn't intend to ask that Q, but just copied and brought it from phase I. thread.

Please note that Martin Luther distinguished it as Oster-fest and Volks-fest.
In other words, he recognized that the same word was used for different meanings, as we notice in case of Sabbath, for Sabbath and for Week.

If we separate it, then we get the answer for verse 3.

 

Hi brother, you have a good point here. However I would like to point out two things. One, more and more Christians today are coming to the position that The Bible is not inerrant and therefore cannot be believed in its entirety.

The second thing is that none of us practices what we already know. Our knowledge of Christ and what we SHOULD do is always way ahead of what we actually do. This is true of us all. We all fall way short of the glory of God and are light years away from the character of Christ.

God continues to humble us all by our indwelling sin and shortcomings, that we may cast ourselves on His mercy and recognize that it is Christ's righteousness alone that makes us acceptable before Him.

Anyway, you bring up some good points I agree with.

As for the ever changing "bible" here is a little study I just finished.

Luke 4:44 Geological blunder in many modern versions

In Luke 4:44 we read: "And he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE." The immediate context clearly shows that the Lord Jesus was in Galilee, which is far north of the region of Judea. In fact, the very next verse tells us: "And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret." Gennesaret is another name for the Sea of Galilee. See Matthew 4:18 and Mark 1:16.

Galilee and Judea are two distinct and separate regions in the land of Israel, with Decapolis and Samaria standing between them. (See Matthew 4:25; 19:1; Mark 3:7; Luke 2:4; 3:1; 5:17; John 4:3 and Acts 9:31)

"He preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" is the reading found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, including A and D, and the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, l, q, and r1. It is also the reading of the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, many Coptic, and the Slavonic ancient versions.

However the Westcott-Hort text, as well as the Nestle-Aland and UBS Critical texts actually read: "and he preached in the synagogues of JUDEA." So read the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, the Catholic New American Bible and Jerusalem bible, and the NIV. This is a clear geographical blunder. This erroneous reading is found in P75, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts which differ from each other in significant ways more than 3000 times in the gospels alone.

It is of more than passing interest that even the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901, both of which generally followed the W-H texts and omitted some 4000 words from the New Testament, did not follow the Westcott-Hort text in this place, but rather saw the blatant blunder of this false reading, and instead went with "in the synagogues of GALILEE."

Not only this, but now there are three more modern bible versions that have recently come down the pike, and which are also based on the UBS critical text. All three have now gone back to the correct reading of "in the synagogues of GALILEE". These are the Holman Standard of 2003, the Message 2002 and the 2004 ISV (International Standard Version)

Agreeing with the correct reading of "he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE" are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Young's, Weymouth, Darby, New Life Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, German Luther, French Louis Segond, and the Modern Greek versions.

Among the silly reasons for adopting the bogus reading of "the synagogues of JUDEA", Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, whose NET version also reads this way, says: "Judea is probably the original reading since it is both the harder reading and supported by the best witnesses. “Galilee” is an assimilation to Mark 1:39 and Matt 4:23."

Now this is interesting. According to Mr. Wallace, we should adopt this "probably original reading" because it is the harder reading and supported by the "best witnesses" which disagree with each other literally thousands of times in the N.T. alone. The reading of "Judea" is not only "the harder reading" but it is the IMPOSSIBLE reading. It is just flat out wrong. According to men like Daniel Wallace, if the reading doesn't make any sense and is contrary to all historical evidence, then it must be right! Go figure.

Will Kinney