Since you do not want to answer my question - then I am out of this discussion,.
Guess, I just continue to accept the fact that the KJV is NOT perfect.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Questions for those holding to KJVO Position
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Guess, I just continue to accept the fact that the KJV is NOT perfect.
Servant of Jehovah
Member
I don't see how you could come to such a conclusion. You asked if the KJV taught Baptism by immersion exclusively. I believe it does, but on basis that it transliterates (instead of translating) the Greek, which means to immerse.
There was likely more than one printer in Edinburg. So was that 1699 Edinburgh edition printed by the king's or queen's printer.
There were several printers in London. Was that 1700 London KJV edition printed by the king's printer in London?
37818
Well-Known Member
Revelation 1:8, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith Lord the God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
The KJV is missing "God" in the text.
Servant of Jehovah
Member
1) "God" is not original to the text. There's evidence in support of the ommission of it. I'm not going to try and pass off someone else's work on this topic as my own, so here's a link: Revelation 1:8 - Textus Receptus
2) The phrase "which is, and which was, and which is to come" is one of the five triadic statements of Revelation. This phrase itself is the meaning of the Hebrew name יְהֹוָה, Yehovah, the I AM THAT I AM. Therefore, there's no loss of doctrine either, as it explicitly points to Christ being JEHOVAH God.
37818
Well-Known Member
Wrong. "Lord the God" is original to Revelation 1:8. "God" being omitted was one of the TR errors. Prove otherwise.
Servant of Jehovah
Member
First, prove it was an error.
37818
Well-Known Member
37818
Well-Known Member
Servant of Jehovah
Member
Whilst I cannot confirm or deny your statement (I don't know Greek), I do know there is evidence outside of Codxes alone.
Nick Sayer's lists Tertullian, Beatus of Liébana, and the Book of Armagh. In all honesty, I find this to be underwhelming, but I think we should also consider the critical text. This is a minority reading in the Textus Receptus. If we are going to claim the KJV/TR are in error here, then at least be consistent and say that the critical text is wrong for having hundreds more minority readings than the TR.
Additionally, consider the context and how the TR and CT contrast.
Revelation 1:8-11
(KJV) "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book..."
(ESV) "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.' I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, 'Write what you see in a book...”
Notice how the TR in verse 8 has the Lord talking, then in verse 11, it reconnects to verse 8, applying it to Christ. But when you look at the CT, the phrase "Alpha and Omega" is removed from verse 11, disconnecting it from Christ in the direct context. That seems like a doctrinal change. As Thomas Ross states:
"The Received Text identifies Christ, the speaker in 1:8, 11, as the Almighty, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last. The critical text, by adding the word 'God' in v. 8 and omitting the phrases highlighted above in v. 8 and v. 11, change the speaker in v. 8 from Christ to the Father, and remove the testimony to Christ’s Deity from this passage." source
37818
Well-Known Member
Huh? Irrelevant.
Re: Revelation 1:8, . . . κυριος ο θεος . . .
TR changed it to, . . . ο κυριος . . .
Omitting ο θεος.
Servant of Jehovah
Member
The fact is, there is evidence to support the KJV/TR reading, even if you don't want to admit it. You don't seem intent on actually discussing, so if you don't want to have a discussion worth having, then I will see myself out.
God never said His preserved Word would only be in Greek Codexes. He can preserve His Word any way He sees fit.
The Scriptures indicate that God promised to preserve the same exact specific words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles, not different words in a post-NT Latin translation. The meaning of the term preserve would suggest that it would be the same words given by inspiration that would be preserved.
The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by moving of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). 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 to the prophets and would state something about language.
The words spoken by the holy prophets (2 Pet 3:2) which were the same words holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21) are clearly identified as scripture (2 Pet. 1:20). The apostle Peter maintained that the apostle Paul spoke in his epistles or writings that were Scripture (2 Peter. 3:16). Likewise, the words that Paul spoke by the Holy Spirit would properly refer to the same written words given by inspiration of God to him (1 Cor. 2:13). The word scripture clearly indicated what was or what would be written since Scriptures can be read (Matt. 21:42). Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:50).
KJV-only author Samuel Gipp maintained that “we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired” (Answer Book, p. 86).
Servant of Jehovah
Member
Oh, I agree that the original language texts have been preserved, but I also believe that other languages have preserved them as well. It's not really a lack of preservation if a word or two were added, then, later removed to conform it back to its original state. Now, if I were trying to say a reading became lost and then just reappeared, then, sure, that would contradict preservation.
I believe that I have the original text of the NT in the Textus Receptus edition edited by Dr. Steve Combs. I don't hold to the TBS text, however, for either Old or New Testaments. I have found places where both disagree with the readings the KJV followed.
37818
Well-Known Member
God preserved His word.
He gave our New Testament books in it's Greek.
It's hand copied copies are in it's Greek.
So am I to understand you think God changes it to something else?
I presented a very specific change that is known to have occured.
Re: Revelation 1:8, . . . κυριος ο θεος . . .
TR changed it to, . . . ο κυριος . . .
Omitting ο θεος.
So if ο θεος was not omitted, when was it added?
Servant of Jehovah
Member
No, I don't believe God "changed" His Word, at least not after the fact. Like some of the OT quotations in the NT aren't one-for-one like the Hebrew, so He "changed" or "repurposed" OT passages to fit a particular thing in the NT. That, however, is not the same as what you seem to think I've said.
I don't know exactly when. I will be the first to admit I simply do not have that much experience discussing this particular variant. However, after I get a better grasp on Hebrew, I want to move on to learning Greek, which should allow me to examine manuscripts. Maybe then I'll be able to figure out the answer to your question!
Was my English teacher lying to us when we were taught perfect tense in high school?
Google it. I found plenty of examples. None of them count? What standard of English are you using?
I can say, “There have been no bugs in my yard.”
You might not recognize the reality of the sentence, but your denial of the sentence doesn’t scratch it’s existence.
Here’s a link for you. It is not related to what I learned in school as far as I know because the internet has not been around that long. Given that my high school education and common knowledge corroborate the idea that English does have a perfect tense, I would give you an opportunity to explain why I have been misguided in my education.
I will ask you the same question.
If it was not added, when was it omitted?
All I have now is your opinion on it.
Who dates the manuscripts?
How definite are the dates of the manuscripts?
Are the people who dated the manuscripts trustworthy? Do they have any bias? Do they have any dishonest bias?
You are making assumptions, in my opinion, that are hard to be both dogmatic and logically honest about at the same time.
Tell me what you know that will clear this up for me.