Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism

Hi Jim, if you think there is no change in theology with the RSV reading of "a maiden will conceive and bear a son" versus the sign the Lord himself gives of "a virgin shall conceive", then it is probably too late for your recovery.

There is nothing special in the "sign" that a maiden will conceive. This happens every day of the year. But that a virgin would conceive and bear a son is indeed a "sign" from the Lord.

Happy trails,

Will

 

Hope of Glory posts: "There is enough truth that one could find salvation in the New World Translation."

I agree. Though the NWT is a very bad and bogus bible, yet the gospel is still there and God can reach His people through it. But it is not the pure, complete and inerrant words of God as is the King James Bible.

I agree with your point.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

Uh, D, it should be obvious to the least saint who knows anything about the subject of textual issues that "The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts" are in complete disarray and there is NO agreement among all the scholars as to which readings in literally thousands of places are correct or not.

All modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, Holman and NKJV differ from each other in sometimes thousands of words, and all of these often reject the clear Hebrew readings, some of them scores and scores of times, and not always in the same places as the others. Then on top of this, we have all those often serious translational differences.

There are at least 25 different printed Greek texts out there, and the Nestle-Aland critical texts keep changing from edition to edition, and none of the modern versions even agree with it all the way through.

Most of your fellows here would disagree with your own textual choices in hundreds of places. You have an "every man for himself" mystical bible that doesn't agree with anybody else's.

So when you speak about "The Greek and Hebrew" as being your final authority, you are in fact telling us nothing of substance at all.

Since you refuse to acknowledge the correct meaning of "taxing" versus "census", in spite of all the evidence from Greek lexicons, commentators and other Bible translations I previousl listed, it is clear that you are your own authority and have no Bible in print that you think is the inerrant words of God.

You now refer us to the TR that underlies the KJB, but are you aware of the fact that this is a particular variety of TR, and that Scrivenir had to back-translate from the KJB to come up with the TR put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which you probably are referring to?

And Scrivenir didn't always get it right. He made some boo boos.

Your textual position is smoke and mirrors, and I'm sure there are many here who totally disagree with your own opinions on the matter.

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Will K

 

A few more concrete examples of today's Bible Babel.

Sometimes we get too ethereal or philosophical in our discussions about the Bible version issue, so I would like to post some concrete examples I was looking at this morning in my studies.


Luke 10:41-42 "And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful about many things, BUT ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."  

"but one thing is needful" is the majority reading of all texts, but a curious thing happens when we look at both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Instead of saying "but one thing is needful", these two "oldest and best" read: "but few things are needful, the one". ONLY the NASB from 1963 to 1977 and the Amplified version read: "BUT ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part."  

Not even the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, ISV read as does the NASB from 1963 through 7 revisions to 1977. Ah, but then in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to go back to the other reading of "but one thing is needful" and so now the 95 Update reads like all the others. The previous Nestle-Alands used to read this way, but now once again they have changed their NA text to read like the KJB. 

A few additional notes on Luke 10:38-41. In 10:38 we read: "and a certain woman named Martha received him INTO HER HOUSE (eis ton oikon autees). The words "into her house" are found in the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, A and C. Even the earlier Nestle-Aland texts included these words, and so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV, and NIV. However, Vaticanus omits these words and now the Nestle-Aland text has once again changed and they now omit them from their text. In other words, not even the modern versions are "up to date" with the latest "scientific" changes.

Two other similar changes are found in verses 39 and 41. In both verses we read: "and sat at JESUS' feet" and "JESUS answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha...". In both verses the word JESUS is found in the Majority of all texts including Vaticanus, but Sinaiticus reads LORD instead of JESUS, and this time the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NIV decided to follow Sinaiticus instead of Vaticanus and put LORD.

Then in Luke 11:2-4 modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman omit all the capital lettered words: OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH....And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL." All these words are found in the vast Majority of all remaining Greek texts, and in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible, Lamsa's translation of the ancient Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV, Youngs, the Spanish Reina Valera, German Luther, Italian Diodati, the Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Of the 45 Greek words found in Luke 11:1-4, among the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A and C, no two are alike in 32 out of the 45 words! For example, the words "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" are found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, C and D, but because Vaticanus omits them so do versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and all Catholic bible versions. This is the true nature of "the science of textual criticism".

Will Kinney

 

Wasn't it you who wrote, "No book or text can make the claims that the KJV can. I plan to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic"?

How can you make any judgment about the KJV compared to the original texts if you cannot even evaluate them?

If you do not know what God's word is then perhaps you need to study inspiration in light of its histrorcal context. Take a look at 2 Tim. 3:16 and get a good grasp on its teaching.

 

So you have all the answers?

 

Hi gb, may I suggest you also take a look at the context of 2 Timothy 3. It is speaking about the Scriptures that Timothy and his mother and grandmother actually had and read, and Paul says they are inspired Scripture.

Did Timothy and his family have "the originals"? I trow not. In fact, every time the word "Scripture" is used in the Bible, or a quote is given "As it is written..." it NEVER refers to "the originals".

Will K

 

Again as you were warned a few years ago; quit plagiarizing. You did not document the source for this bit of juicy information.

Again as I asked you before: what is the source of your information?

Perhaps you should read http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_plagiar.html

 

So what is your point?

So all is not all?

The same word used in 2 Tmothy 3:16 for scripture is used in the following verses too.

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:28
John 19:36, 37
John 20:9
Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 18:24
Acts 18:28
Roma 1:2
Roma 4:3
Roma 9:17
Roma 10:11
Roma 11:2
Roma 15:4
Roma 16:26
1Cor 15:3, 4
Gala 3:8
Gala 3:22
Gala 4:30
1Tim 5:18
James 2:8
James 2:23
James 4:5
1Pet 2:6
2Pet 1:20
2Pet 3:16

 

GB, a very good list of verses there.

However, you have failed to demonstrate a counter to Will's factual statement that in the BIBLE (definite article 'the' meaning ONE and 'Bible' meaning BOOK), references to 'scripture' are NOT references to any originals.
So, your post raised another important question...

So what?

Scriptures, as shown FROM THE SCRIPTURES (imagine that! Using the Bible to define/understand biblical terms), are something that we have IN HAND. Scriptures are not something we HAVE... (No uncertain terms, no vague ambiguities, no nebulous nonentities, no abstract intangibles, no pixie dust, no long time ago's, no far far aways, no Once Upon a Times, no internationally scattered manuscraps, no vain obscurities, no distant potentialities, no almost realities...)
Please show us in your many verses how they can be a reference to any originals.

 

Bookborn, I for one agree that "the scriptures" are not limited to the originals. They had "the scriptures" (No uncertain terms, no vague ambiguities, no nebulous nonentities, no abstract intangibles, no pixie dust, no long time ago's, no far far aways, no Once Upon a Times, no internationally scattered manuscraps, no vain obscurities, no distant potentialities, no almost realities...) in 1605 yet they produced the KJV, which is also "the scriptures" despite its textual differences from previous instances (which are still available today) of "the scriptures".

 

This is what continually crops up... ("Scriptures are not something we HAVE... ")
It's either EVERYTHING is scriptures, or NOTHING is scriptures. It gets amusing after a while.

 

Wasn't it you who wrote, "No book or text can make the claims that the KJV can. I plan to learn Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic"?

How can you make any judgment about the KJV compared to the original texts if you cannot even evaluate them?

If you do not know what God's word is then perhaps you need to study inspiration in light of its historical context. Take a look at 2 Tim. 3:16 and get a good grasp on its teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]From what I gather from this forum people are saying there is no word of God or that everything is the word of God. I never said the KJV is better than the original. I only said that the Bible(KJV) is unique in that it is the most widely read, translated, copied, quoted, misinterpreted,and misunderstood book in the world. If the KJV is not the word of God for the English speaking people then what is? Is there a better more accurate English translation?

Matthew 14:31
And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Matthew 7:25-27
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

All English translation of the Bible other than the KJV remove important doctrinal points.

The KJV is 100,000% the word of God for English speaking people.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15And 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. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 3:1-7
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I see these things happening before my very eyes next thing you know people on this board will be saying what Bible, what God, there is only us we are our own God, We are God how can we know God he gave us no sign or scripture He isnt real. This is what its coming to folks. We dont stand for what we believe and we wonder why so many are lost and without Christ. Its because of Christians and the doubting that 99% of them do.
Lets get some backbone and stand against this world and its unrighteousness the only way to do that is to agree among ourselves first.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery D.D.

 

The KJV is the word of God for the English speaking people. It's just not the only one.

I believe so, yes.

For years on this board we have been asking for examples, and have never gotten any. Perhaps you know of some?

 

The KJV is nothing more and nothing less than an English translation. If I remember right the NIV has out sold the KJV. But that is not the debate.

Is an English translation the word of God? No. It is an attempt to translate what the translators believed was the word of God. God did not choose to use English to convey His message. He chose languages that in my opinion were much better than English at communicating the message with greater accuracy than such an ambiguous language as English.

Is the KJV a good translation? I think so. However I think there are better. I think the translators did the best job they could especially considering their doctrinal bias and the manuscripts they had available.

In my opinion I think the NASU95 is a far superior translation to the KJV.

The word of God is perfect. What we have today is less than perfect. But we should strive to do our best to arrive at the best possible text which lies closest to the original as we can.

The fact is that nobody has any proof which was the original text.

I have heard that Moises Silva does an exercise with his students to show them how a person can come up with the original text using several perverted texts of the original text in English.

 

If there is a better one please do share your knowledge of it for I know there are plenty of people who'd love more accuracy. For as of right now, The KJV so far is the only one I've actually read that has not been softened or edited unlike a few chunks of wasted paper my husband and I have come across.

 

If I told you they were not I could not prove it.
If I told you they were I could not prove it.

There are references to the originals in a number of cases.

"My own hand"
1Cor 16:21 The greeting is in my own hand--Paul.
Gala 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
Colo 4:18 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my imprisonment. Grace be with you.
2The 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write.
Philemon 1:19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self as well).

 

In my opinion I think the NASU95 is a far superior translation to any others.

 

Hi Lisa,

How do you know if something has been "softened or edited", unless you have a common source to compare two Bibles to? If one takes a KJV as the starting point, and then says "look, the NIV changed this", that's only as logically correct as starting with the NIV or Geneva or any other version then saying "look, the KJV changed this". You can't arbitrarily choose any translation by which all else should be compared. Rather, you should take all the available manuscript evidence, and compare all translations, including the KJV, to that.

But to answer your question directly, I believe that on the "traditional texts" line (TR-based translations), Young's, Green's LITV (Literal Version) and the NKJV are all textually more accurate than the KJV. One Alexandrian line, I believe the NASB, ESV and a few others are textually more accurate.

 

Natters the KJV is older than all the other translations so then there for we must comare what comes after to what existed before.

People dont say oh look his dad looks like him do they it doesnt make sense.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery