Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

When some scholars doubt God's Word, they produced modern versions.

 

AV said:

God turned the heart of the king (James) to authorize the English translation.(Prov.21:1)

Your point? God "turned" Edwin Palmer et al to translate the NIV. Prov. 21:1 is true of kings because it is true of everyone.

You say God had nothing to do with it. Go figure.

I said nothing of the sort, and please do invent beliefs for me that I do not hold, thankyouverymuch.

 

Isn't that what the KJV translators did in 1611?

When some doubt God's Word they study and seek to know the living God and pray for answers.

When some claim they know and are false teachers they proclaim a false security.

One question is: what if the God you think you know isn't the God who is? Shouldn't that produce some humility and study?

 

Askjo said:

When some scholars doubt God's Word, they produced modern versions.

So when the KJV scholars produced the KJV, it was because they doubted the version of God's Word that they already had?

 

Its a good thing God knew that majority of the world and growing will speak and read the english language

 

You greatly err.
English is not the most widely spoken language in the world. Consider these facts:

TEN MOST SPOKEN LANGUAGES IN THE WORLD

Mandarin beats out English by a ratio of two to one. Don't you think that if God, in his justice, was going to be fair to mankind, he would have preserved His inspired word in Mandarin and not in the KJV. Thankfully they are preserved in the original languages and not in any translations. I would hate to be learning a Chinese language in order to have the inspired Word of God. But, hey, that is the mindset of the KJVO.
DHK

 

Hi DHK, The statistics you brought are quite true.
But when we talk about the providence of God shown in the international languages, importance of it in the communication, the usage of the language in preaching the Gospel, I have no doubt that English has been working as the most important language in the world.
In the international politics, English prevails French and Spanish. I don't ignore such statistics, but English is the langauge spoken by the most number of people other than mother tongue speakers if we rule out those mother tongue speakers for each language. Even among Chinese English is the next language spoken mostly in addition to Chinese.
In the aviation industry, there is no way for the pilots to navigate or work for airplanes or communicate with controllers without speaking English. Neither Chinese nor Spanish nor French nor Russian is so.
Before or at the time of Jesus, Greek was like that.

 

Hi DHK, may I remind you that there is no such animal as "The Greek". You have an imaginary bible that you keep making up as you go along, and your own peculiar version will differ from everybody else's. You have an "every man for himself" final written authority.

And even if all you Whateverists could finally come to a conclusion on which Greek readings to adopt, you would still differ on how you think it should be translated. Remember your fiasco with "taxing" versus "census"?

Here are a couple concrete examples for you to consider. Let's see how your "following The Greek" idea works out in real life.

Luke 8:43 "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any..."  

All the words in capital letters are missing only in Vaticanus and 2 other manuscripts (P75 and D, though D also contains readings in this verse not found in any of the others), and are omitted by the RSV 1952, NASB 1963-1995, the NIV 1982 and the TNIV of 2005. Other versions that omit these words are the New English Bible of 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. The earlier Catholic versions like the Douay and the Douay-Rheims include them.

Daniel Wallace and company's NET bible version also omits all these words, and then the good Doctor informs us in his footnotes: " Uncertainty over its authenticity is due primarily to the fact that certain important witnesses do not have the phrase. This evidence alone renders its authenticity unlikely. It may have been intentionally added by later scribes in order to harmonize Luke’s account with similar material in Mark 5:26. NA 27 includes the words in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity."

Of course Mr. Wallace fails to mention the fact that the overwhelming witnesses of ancient versions, manuscripts (including his beloved Sinaiticus), and even many modern English versions disagree with his "uncertainty over its authenticity", and the Greek found in Mark 5:26 doesn't match that found in Luke 8:43, but if you follow men like Wallace, this is all you end up with - uncertainty.

However all these words are found in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C, the Old Latin copies of aur,b, c, ff2, l, and q, the Syriac Peshitta and Harkelian, the Vulgate, some Coptic, the Ethiopic, Slavonic and the Gothic ancient versions.

Even though Westcott and Hort and all earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts completely omitted these words, the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 included them anyway. The first major version to omit them was the liberal RSV of 1952, and now the NASB, NIV and TNIV follow suite. The most recent Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts have once again changed their texts and now include these five Greek words, but place them in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

The NIV is not always the same when translated into foreign languages. The Portuguese Nova Versao International of 2000 now includes all these words that the English NIV omits! It reads: "E estava ali certa mulher que havia doze anos vinha sofrendo de uma hemorragia E GASTATA TUD QUE TINHA COM OS MEDICOS; mas ninguém pudera curá-la."

But wait. There's more. Now many of the other modern versions coming on the scene are going back to including the words "which had spent all her living on physicians". Among these modern and previous Bible versions are the following: Wycliffe ,Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, Weymouth, Young's, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New Life Bible 1969, Amplified version, the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Bible 1996, Bible in Basic English 1961, the NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001, NKJV, Holman Standard Version 2003, The Message 2003, and the ISV of 2005.

Yet many of these newer versions continue in the main to follow the Westcott-Hort texts. Even the footnotes are deceptive. The NASB omits all these words and then tells us in a footnote "SOME mss. add...", while the NIV says "MANY mss. add..." Isn't scholarship a kick in the head!?!  


70 or 72?

Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."

The reading of 70 is found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C. It is also the reading of the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Gothic, many Old Latin copies, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions.

However Vaticanus reads: "After these things the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO and sent them...." So, which is it, 70 or 72? The confusion is seen not only in the various English translations but in the Nestle-Aland texts as well. The reading of 72 was first included in the Westcott-Hort text of 1881, but later the Nestle-Aland text read 70. I have a NA 4th edition 1934 edition and it reads just like the King James Bible - 70. But later on, the Nestle-Aland text once again changed and now the more recent NA text read 72 with the number two in brackets.

The confusion is further seen by the different translations that in the main follow the ever-changing Nestle-Aland critical texts. The reading of 70 is found in the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, Holman Standard Version 2003, Weymouth, New Life Version 1969, Bible in Basic English 1961, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Message 2002, and the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2005.

However, the NIV, TNIV, ESV of 2001, the Catholic versions and Daniel Wallace's NET version all read SEVENTY TWO. Both numbers obviously cannot be what God inspired. Either the KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Holman, and ISV have the correct number, or the NIV, ESV do. You can't have it both ways.


Will K

 

Psalm 12:6-7 was completely true in 1605. Why were the pure, preserved words corrected and replaced in 1611? Or was God lying until 1611?

</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Natters, We Bible believers do maintain that God has always kept His pure words here on this earth, and He did this prior to 1611 as well. They just weren't in the English language yet.

Your position is not only that you do not know where they were before 1611, but more importantly, where they are now. You simply do not believe there is such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible in any language on the earth today.

If you are interested, I have written an article called Where was the word of God before 1611?

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

If you read it, then please come back and tell us what you think. Where was it before 1611 and where is it now?

Your answer will reveal a great deal about how you see the Bible version issue.

Thanks,

Will K

 

Where were they? The KJV does not match any prior book, in any language, 100%. It does not match even the texts it was translated from 100%. So what did such verses mean in 1605?

Please don't tell me what I know. I do know where they were before 1611, and I do know where they are now.

Please don't tell me what I believe. I do believe there is a complete, inerrant and 100% true Bible today.

I have read that article before. The Old Latin, the Waldensian texts, and Beza's NT do not match the KJV 100%. Also, your article does not mention a single complete book (the one could "hold in their hand") that could meet the criteria KJV-only demans in terms of inerrancy and preservation.

Then: in the range of available manuscripts, texts, and complete translations.

Now: in the range of available manuscripts, texts, and complete translations.

Indeed, it will reveal that I am in agreement with even the men that translated the KJV on this issue.

 

The Greek New Testament I hold in my hand is not imaginary. I do not make things up. I really am tired of false accusations. Does this come out of wilful ignorance to study the Bible in its original languages or what? Since this "prophecy" of yours (that I have an imaginary book) is false, then by Old Testament law you should be stoned. Correct?
BTW, the New Testament Greek book that I hold is the Textus Receptus, the same that the KJV was translated from, but you don't care about that either do you?

We all know that in reality there are two Bibles, that result from two different texts: the critical and the majority texts--the mv's coming from the former, and the KJV from the latter. The issue is not in the translation. The issue is in the text. Even the text of the TR (agreeing with the (critical text) would have Luke 2:1,2 be translated as "census or enrollment." There was an abundance of evidence given to you. The fact is that you would rather believe an error in the KJV than what the actual Greek says in almost 5,000 manuscripts. So who is right? Certainly not the KJV. The Greek word means census, and is rightly translated that way in a plethora of translations. There was no taxation at that time; even history attests to that. The taxation came later. To take the view that it means taxation is both historically wrong and wrongly interpreted. It makes the KJVO look like a fool.

I don't disagree with you. I am not in favor of the critical text. I am not a Westcott and Hort fan. I am not in favor of most modern versions. I prefer the King James version. However I take a strong postion against any person who states that the KJV is infallible, without error, and inspired. That position is ludicrous. The KJV does contain mistakes. It is not infallible. It is not inspired. No translation is.
God promnised to preserve his Word, but never in a translation.

Sure it is, and it doesn't phase me one bit. I take my study from the TR, which is sufficient enough for me. I believe that God has preserved His Word in the majority text, so there is no need to go through all of this with me.

No you can't have it both ways. I never implied that you could.
What you can have is a Greek New Testament that has faithfully preserved God's Word. From that Greek New Testament we can faithfully translate God's Word and not come up with foolish words like "unicorn," "Easter," etc. We can ascertain the true meanings of words like "baptism," "church," which were inserted only because of the ecclesiastical and political pressure of that time; words that ought to have been translated immersed and assembly.
The Greek gives us far more depth to the meaning of phrases and words, especially idioms.

When Jesus said: "It is easier to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," what did he mean? There were no stainless steel sewing needles at that time. They weren't invented. It is an idiom. But what did it mean. The KJV won't tell you. But some study with the Greek and other resources will.

1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

How do you gird up the loins of your mind? I didn't know the mind had loins?? It is another idiom. The Greek may help you to understand this. But you won't find the meaning by simply studying the KJV. It is necessary to go back to the Greek in many such cases.
DHK

 

I rather like J.B. Phillips attitude about biblical inspiration. (J.B. Phillips the author of the J.B. Phillips New Testament in Modern English) He said he could not accept a verbal inspiration of any copy of the scriptures. Only the original manuscripts may be considered God breathed and without error.

Rather, he accepted the notion that all modern copies have sufficient information in thoughts and concepts, rather than exact words, for the seeker to find the "words" of God for life and for eternity.

Consider that we never exact a theological doctrine based on one word in any translation, but rather the combined continuity and consistency of all scripture. One verse does not a doctrine make.

This concept renders all the babble about translations, whether it be the so-called Greek, Hebrew or any translation redundant.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hi Jim, since the central issue is the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, it is obvious that you too are an "onlyist". You believe that ONLY the originals WERE inerrant and inspired of God - thus, you have no inerrant, complete, pure and 100% true Holy Bible NOW.

I agree with you that the simple gospel can be found in any version out there, no matter how poorly done, but what do you do with all the promises of God regarding His words remaining in a Book here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Where is this Book of the Lord now in 2006? Did God lie or fudge the truth about preserving His words in a book?

Words do make up Doctrines. There are many doctrines changed and perverted in every modern bible version I have yet seen. This is how one can know that they are bogus bibles and not the real deal.

If you care to list for us which English translation in your opinion comes closest to the non-existent and never seen by you originals, then I will be happy to ask you about some doctrinal issues.

According to the latest poll, 85% of students at America's largest Evangelical seminary openly admit that they do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you personally believe any text or bible in any language on earth today is now the inerrant words of God?

A simple Yes or No will do, but an "I dunno" is also an acceptable answer.

Kept by the power of God through faith,

Will

 

There is enough truth that one could find salvation in the New World Translation...

 

Hi DHK, Well I'm glad to hear you at least accept the TR that underlies the King James Bible as being the true words of God for the N.T., but you still only have a third part of the Bible there.

Actually, if you really believe the variety of TR that underlies the KJB is the true words of God and none other, than in order for your thinking and position to be consistent, you would also have to accept the King James Bible translation alone as being the true words of God, and none other. (I'll explain this later after I hear back from you on my following question)

Not the NKJV and definitely Not the imaginary one you keep inventing by your own peculiar translation methods.

Do you really believe that only the particular variety of Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible is the true, complete and inerrant words of God for the New Testament?

I am quite serious about this question and would like an honest and easy to understand answer. Thanks.

Will ,

 

I already said the words of God are available in concept, and not the precise words. Even when using the Greek and Hebrew, which I do, we must know the context of the words we are reading,,next to impossible, except b the general context of the existing word.

I disagree that any foundational doctrine is changed by one word. For example, when the RSV changed virgin to maiden in Isaiah, it did not change the facts of scripture, in the Hebrew language...a maiden shall conceive...no problem there, and no doctrinal change in theology.

Sorry, you can't catch me on that one. I have been around far too long.

Cheers,

Jim

 

You admitted ignorance and then turn around and say nothing compares to the KJV?

No book or text can make the claims that the KJV can according to the KJVOs. Study would change that though. </font>[/QUOTE]How did I admit ignorance? All I said was that no one will ever agree on this subject. If we don't poses Gods word how could He command us to preach it and not give it to us. If everyone new Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic we wouldn't need the KJV. The KJV takes nothing away from the original text and when words needed to be added to translate the grammar to English its in italics to show it wasn't original. If the KJV isn't Gods word tell me what is because I need a copy of it if I am to preach His word.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.

 

We do possess the Greek and the Hebrew. We don't need the KJV, though it is a very accurate translation, it is not absolutely necessary. God is not bound to the KJV. Are you saying that God is limited to the KJV. God is powerless without the KJV. God's hands are tied and limited. God is no longer omnipotent! That seems to be the view of the KJVO.

"If the KJV isn't Gods word tell me what is because I need a copy of it if I am to preach His word."
God's Word is preserved in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--These holy men of God were not the KJV translators. They were the Old Testament prophets, and by extension the Apostles (authors of the New Testament). The KJV translators have nothing to do with this. The Bible itself teaches that it is only the original manuscripts that are inspired. We have copies of those manuscripts, in fact over 5,000 of them. Thus the Word of God is preserved. There is a difference between inspiration and preservation. God has promised to preserve his Word and he has. But inspiration belongs only to those documents in which God himself "breathed into" (inspired) His very breath. He did that once and only once. And those were the very manuscripts that the Apostles and prophets authored. Perhaps if God had allowed those very manuscripts to survive He would know that many would turn to idolatry and worship them just as many today worship the KJV.

Judges 8:27 And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.
DHK

 

God can do what ever he will's to do He is and always will be God never changing always love, always just, If I read and understood Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic you better believe I would have copies. But as most Americans speak English I believe that the KJV is flawless because God is who he says he is and he can do what he wills. His will is to preserve His word. If you believe the Greek and Hebrew Bibles are Gods word and we know the KJV is and exact translation thereof then how could it not be Gods Word as well as the Greek and Hebrew.

If I say hi, in any language, it is still hi no matter the language.Gods Word is still Gods word no matter the language. God speaks all languages and understands and knows all for He is God.

As preachers God grants some more gifts than others. As I only speak English I will stick with Gods word it that language. When I learn another laungage I will be sure to get a Bible in that laungage.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.