Definitions, Please

Dear Dr. Bob,
Replying to your comments on my first post about the KJV vs. "the others":

I certainly have not read all of your comments on this baptistboard.com site, but I have read enough already to understand your position. I know there may be what some consider "extremes" in the "KJV only" position...but let me ask this: Why is it that folks like you are so "Anti-KJV"? It is not that you are defending God's Holy Word, folks like you make an everyday practice out of bashing the KJV, and calling people who defend it "cultists" for goodness sake. Someone who wants to defend the integrity of God's Holy Word gets shots from people like you, and are called cultists.

Are you the cultist, dear sir? Are you heading up an "Anti-KJV" cult? What exactly is yours and everyone else's problem with the KJV? Is the "archaic" language the only problem you folks can come up with? No one asks Congress to rewrite the Constitution with all of its archaic, old English language. How about some of the old classic hymns you sing in church, why don't you demand that they be "modernized"?

It blows my mind that you ask for evidence that God preserves His Holy Word. Are you implying that He does not, or did not?

Following are a few questions that I would like you to point blank answer, please number your responses according to the question...and do please answer them this way. I will keep the number of questions few, then after answering them...feel free to return the "challenge" to me...in the same format.

Questions:
1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired?
2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years.
3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language?
4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek", why do you think God doesn't have His perfect word preserved, or translated, or whichever you want to call it, in another language...preferrably in English, seeing that it is the dominate language in the world, and has been for quite some time now. And why is it only in Greek, if less than 1% of the world's population speaks or reads Greek.
5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it? Leaving out the "extremes", there will always be ones who are extreme in almost anything. People who attack the KJV, hardly ever attack any other version...even versions that shouldn't even be on bookshelves...yet it is the KJV that gets "hammered" every single time.
6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900, during which time, in English speaking countries, there was really only the AV1611 Bible...and since the late 1800's to current time...of which the Body of Christ is going further and further into apostasy, is being overrun with "newer and more accurate translations" each year?

I will stop my questions here, and I await your response.

One last comment though, especially for the others who may read this (I've talked with plenty of men over the years who have the same "opinion" as Dr. Bob, and short of God's grace, I don't see him changing his mind about this)...Why do you suppose all the "great scholars" of our time constantly make references to the "original Greek language"? Do you understand that that is exactly what the Catholic Church did for hundreds of years with Latin? Common people didn't know Latin, only the priests did...so people had to COME TO THEM FOR THE INTERPRETATION. Highly educated people like Dr. Bob here, want to become the "final authority" on God's word. They convince you that "correct interpretation" has to come from the "original language". Our God is not the author of confusion. Our God has never been a God who is impressed with men's education...it is foolishness unto Him. Our God is a God who take foolishness, ignorant, common men...and uses them for His purpose, for His glory. Watch these so-called "godly men" who want you to run to them for the "correct interpretation" of the "perfect Greek". Read them like a book. But most of all, ask the Lord for guidance...He will take care of the rest.

Your brother in Christ,
David

 

Originally posted by Man of Sword:

< Following are a few questions that I would like you to point blank answer, please number your responses according to the question...and do please answer them this way. I will keep the number of questions few, then after answering them...feel free to return the "challenge" to me...in the same format. >

As an outspoken cynic of most people and most ideas, I will unapologetically impose my own answers to these Q's:

< Questions:
1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired? >

Yes.

< 2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years. >

It is not in "a Bible you can actually hold," and the original manuscripts are not "fictious" (sic). They were actually written down on parchment, or some material.

< 3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language? >

It is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89).

< 4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek", why do you think God doesn't have His perfect word preserved, or translated, or whichever you want to call it, in another language...preferrably in English, seeing that it is the dominate language in the world, and has been for quite some time now. And why is it only in Greek, if less than 1% of the world's population speaks or reads Greek. >

It is not "only in Greek." It is too 'Greek' even to be in Greek. If God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), then human languages, which express *our thoughts*, are not the thoughts of God because our thoughts are NOT his thoughts. Also, Mandarin Chinese has more than twice as many speakers as English, and Spanish has approximately the same number as English.

< 5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it? Leaving out the "extremes", there will always be ones who are extreme in almost anything. People who attack the KJV, hardly ever attack any other version...even versions that shouldn't even be on bookshelves...yet it is the KJV that gets "hammered" every single time. >

I 'attack' the biases involved in making a translation, of which the KJV's was to help solidify the authoritarian church-state rule of an Anglican monachy in an era of increasing knowledge in an increasing world. I attack the bias of the 'New World Translation,' which aspires to affirm the single authority of the Watchtower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses' publishing arm. I attack odd versions (usually not translations) which deliberately change basic biblical doctrines, such as have been promulgated by queers, evironmentalists, and vegans. I attack any contention that one translation is exclusively *the Word*-- which BTW corresponds to the position of the KJV translators (See their Introduction to the Reader).

< 6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900, during which time, in English speaking countries, there was really only the AV1611 Bible...and since the late 1800's to current time...of which the Body of Christ is going further and further into apostasy, is being overrun with "newer and more accurate translations" each year? >

I don't do any 'supposing' about some 300-year revival which did not exist.

< One last comment though, especially for the others who may read this (I've talked with plenty of men over the years who have the same "opinion" as Dr. Bob, and short of God's grace, I don't see him changing his mind about this)...Why do you suppose all the "great scholars" of our time constantly make references to the "original Greek language"? Do you understand that that is exactly what the Catholic Church did for hundreds of years with Latin? >

And it is what many-- apparently including you-- are doing with the KJV language.

< Common people didn't know Latin, only the priests did...so people had to COME TO THEM FOR THE INTERPRETATION. Highly educated people like Dr. Bob here, want to become the "final authority" on God's word. >

If this means Bob or anyone "wants to become the 'final authority' on God's word," then when KJVO's point out differences between teh KJV's and any others, THEY are trying to become the final authority on God's word. Hopefully both positions only seek to proclaim what is God's word.

< They convince you that "correct interpretation" has to come from the "original language". >

And KJVO's try to convince that any differences in translations are settled in favor of KJV regardless of compelling evidence otherwise. [This is 'cultist,' as you made reference to].

< Our God is not the author of confusion. Our God has never been a God who is impressed with men's education...it is foolishness unto Him. >

I'm glad you admit the 'education' and methods of the KJV translators, so often lauded on this board by Cassidy and others, is foolishness.

< Our God is a God who take foolishness, ignorant, common men...and uses them for His purpose, for His glory. >

So the 'foolishness' of educated Bible translators (of any era) can be used for HIs glory. I'm glad you see that.

< Watch these so-called "godly men" who want you to run to them for the "correct interpretation" of the "perfect Greek".>

I reckon you're right-- pass over any post here in which the Greek is interpreted (Cassidy has quite a few of those, too).

 

Dear Dr. Bob,
On the responses to my questions:
Your pre-#1 response: I do not error in stating that the KJV is God's Holy Word. And do please trust in the fact that I firmly, with every fiber of my being believe that, and know it to be true.

Your responses to #1 and #2 were expected. You say you believe in a God inspired, inerrant, infallible word. Yet according to your following answers…no one has it. And yes, you are correct, that if there were some "originals" that were actually penned by Paul and Peter…the Catholic Church would definitely own them. And we would all "be out in the cold".

Dr. Bob, why do you believe in an inerrant, infallible word of God…yet you don't believe in its actual, physical existence? If you do believe in its physical existence, you most likely believe that its "somewhere out there, hidden among all the manuscripts…and God help us to find it.

I have taught the Bible for years, you may have as well. How do you stand up in front of the Body of Christ, and hold your Bible in the air, and say "Well guys, this isn't God's Holy Word, but we'll give it our best shot any ways"? God help us if we don't "physically" have His word. Think about it. What are we to do if we don't have the word of God? Where is the authoritative source…where is the final authority? If our Bible, (or Bibles depending on what side of the fence you stand on), is only a translation, and is "close" to the original, and has "all of the basic fundamentals"…how can close be good enough on God's Holy, inerrant, infallible, perfect word? Perfect means perfect, not close.

So many of these arguments are made asking for empirical evidence…which I agree is needed…but we miss a major point: What about God? What about His character? What about the intent of His word, why did He give it in written form…so that it would be lost, forgotten, or destroyed…so that the adversary would win? Think of the logic of the argument. It makes no sense as far as the character of God is concerned.

Now, on to your questions.
1. On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?
For now, let's go on the evidence of what "products" are produced by the different Greek texts. The TR is primarily used for the KJV, and now the NKJV…all other "versions" use primarily the other two. The other two Greek texts are preferred by the Roman Catholic Church, the TR and the KJV are basically rejected by the Catholic Church. If you argue with a Jehovah's Witness, and you tell him you will not use the "New World Translation", they prefer to use the NIV or the NASB…because it falls more in line with their "version". Comparing the KJV to the other two main "versions", look at the number of times the Deity of Christ is "lessened". Why? Is this strictly a "textual criticism" argument?
In Luke 2:33 for example…a really "un-important" Bible verse, we see a big difference between the KJV and the others.
"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." Luke 2:33 KJV
"The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." Luke 2:33 NIV
"And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him." Luke 2:33 NASB

Does the "original Greek" here say the name Joseph, or does it says the child's father. We all know for a fact that the father of Jesus is God, not Joseph. What most men say, making the argument here is that "we all know that the Father of Jesus Christ is God". Really? So why is it changed? The "original Greek" clearly says the name "Joseph"…not the "child's father".

1 John 5:7-8
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NIV

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NASB
Here, the NIV and NASB not only eliminate verse 7, which is probably the most definite of all Bible verses in proving the Trinity, they do it in a very deceptive way…by pulling half of verse 8 up into verse 7, so that it doesn't stand out so obvious that verse 7 has been removed.

There are many, many others…too many to list.

2. Is the AV1611 based on the TR solely?
Addressed in the answer above.

3. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve His Word in English?
It doesn't. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve it in Greek? It doesn't. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve it in Hebrew? It doesn't. What's the point? Are you saying it is not preserved in any language?
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

4. Do you have any proof that IF God preserved His Word in a language that it was the AV1611 English?
I'll answer this question with a question. Did God preserve His Word anywhere? I believe it MUST BE PRESERVED somewhere. And if it is, where is it? Which "version" is it? It's not a question of "is it preserved"…it absolutely has to be. So since it is preserved, where is it?

5. IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611 Jacobean English, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?
Which changes are you referring to? The majority of ones you are referring to are grammatical changes. Changes where in the "old English" it would not read as it does today. Changes that obviously needed to be made, such as two words being typed in succession…where today we do not write that way. The vast majority of changes you are referring to are grammatical…and you know this.

6. Do you personally use the AV1611 or one of the many revisions? (1762 Cambridge; 1769 Oxford)
Obviously, I use only the KJV.


Dear Rockfort,
Thank you for your response to the questions posed to Dr. Bob…at least you answered the questions, he did not.

Now to address your answers:
To the first question, you answered "yes", that the Bible is inspired by God.

Yet to the second question, you said that there is NO Bible that is God inspired, THAT A PERSON CAN HOLD IN THEIR HAND. I hope you understand the severity of that answer. If there is no inspired word of God that anyone can hold in their hand, then you are basically left with two outcomes:
1) that we can not be held accountable by God to what His word has instructed us to do, or not to do…according to His laws, His commandments…are we really under grace, are we still under the law…did the Son of God come and die for our sins, or was it someone else?
2) God help us all at the judgment…it will be every man for himself, to see "who got it right" as far as God is concerned. If we have no written word of God, that is God inspired, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, only man's opinions.

I did not exactly expect that response from anyone, a response that, just applying a tiny bit of common sense, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How do people of this day know what God is requiring of them? You must believe in modern day prophets.

I am not going to spend much more time in responding to a reply from someone who does not believe the Bible is the God inspired, word of God. You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it

And for the comment on the fictitious "original manuscripts", the reason I made the statement I did and called them fictitious, is that these ""original manuscripts" are constantly referred to by people…when they are referring to the Textus Receptus, or to the other Greek manuscripts…as if they are the "originals". These are copies, of copies, of copies, etc. They are not the originals, but a lot of people who have not studied this subject, are misled into thinking that they are. So yes, they are fictitious.

Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter?

And finally, that the Bible is God's word settled in heaven.

If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I can't imagine the group you are describing needing more than a phone-booth to hold their meetings in. To affirm # 5, one would have to say, they are not TR-only. To be pro Majority Text is to not favor the Critical Text, but also to be broader than the TR!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My position regarding #5 is even broader. I not only am not TR-only (as all TRs differ, although I use the Scrivener TR as my Greek bible, I have questions regarding some of the readings, even Scrivener said he could not account for about a half dozen of them!) nor MT-Only, but an advocate of the Traditional Text, of which the TRs are representitive as is the MT. Does that muddy the water even more?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Question asked by Dr. Bob "5. IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611 Jacobean English, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?
Which changes are you referring to? The majority of ones you are referring to are grammatical changes. Changes where in the "old English" it would not read as it does today. Changes that obviously needed to be made, such as two words being typed in succession…where today we do not write that way. The vast majority of changes you are referring to are grammatical…and you know this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems to me that both of you could use a lesson in accurate reporting. The "50,000" changes charged by Dr. Bob is somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion. Over 90% of those so called "changes" are mearly spelling changes, "sonne" changed to "son" "trvst" changed to "trust" etc. It is obviously not a change of substance, merely an updating of the spelling.

As to Man of Sword's answer, it is equally flawed. There are few grammactical changes from the 1611 edition of the AV to the 1762/1769 editions. In fact, of the 421 translation changes, only 136 were changes of substance. And of the remaining 285 changes of substance, many, if not most are changes of form only, I.E. "towards" changed to "toward" "burnt" changed to "burned" etc.

Some personal advice for Man of the Sword, if you are going to defend the KJV, defend it with facts, not myth. When you defend the KJV with unsubstantiated information, and that information is proven, subsequently, to be false, you have done more harm than good to the cause of the KJV.

Thomas "I love and use only the KJV but have real objective reasons for doing so" Cassidy.

[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dr. Bob, I noticed that too. When asked "which KJV" "I use the KJV" doesn't seem to me to be a very forthcoming answer.

When somebody asks me I tell them "I use the 1762 Cambridge for my personal study and reading bible, the 1769 Oxford for preaching (the Scofield edition of the 1769 Oxford comes in a large print, but not giant print, edition which is easier for me to see without my reading glasses as it lays on the pulpit), and I occasionaly read from my 1611 editions (reprints, of course) of which I have two, the Thomas Nelson edition in modern type, and a reprint of the original (first edition, He varient) 1611 exactly as it first appeared."

I know that is probably more than you really wanted to know, but it is how I answer the question.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
What you seem to be referring to, is people who really don't understand what it is they are talking about, and using a position like #5 as a dividing weapon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It appears (since we are disputing this point) that the # 5 position umbrella is two big and needs to divide.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, this categorizing business can get out of hand. It's okay as long as it identifies specific issues to address and the best approaches for constructive dialogue on those issues. Otherwise, I see no point in subdividing the categories ad infinitum.

Mainly, my point is that we should not tolerate pugnacious text/version supremacists (or "onlies") of any kind -- regardless of the specific issue they are arguing about. To be fair, that also applies to troublemakers who malign the KJV or KJVO's just for spite.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
. . . that such-a-one may recategorize himself or repudiate his incongruent ways.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I think. Which version did you get that from?

TLB

 

Please excuse my intrusion but some of this is too tempting... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
I do not error in stating that the KJV is God's Holy Word. And do please trust in the fact that I firmly, with every fiber of my being believe that, and know it to be true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect that none of the readers doubt that you believe what you write. The question is whether your beliefs are supported by the known facts. I am fully convinced that they do not and nothing that you have written establishes even a weak factual foundation.

The Word of God is nothing more nor less than what God has chosen to reveal of Himself directly to all mankind; His special revelation given in writing as opposed to the general revelation of God in nature (which by the way is enough to condemn a sinner according to Romans 1). It was inerrant, infallible, and complete in the originals. The original autographs by definition can be the only earthly standard for judging how well manuscripts or translations agree with what God inspired.

Further, since we cannot prove with 100% certainty what the precise original wording was, we must accept that these uncertainties are for our good and God's glory. There is no doubt that everything God has willed to reveal about Himself is communicated in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, CT, MT, TR, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

physical existence?...God help us to find it.

So many of these arguments are made asking for empirical evidence…which I agree is needed…but we miss a major point: What about God? What about His character? What about the intent of His word, why did He give it in written form…so that it would be lost, forgotten, or destroyed…so that the adversary would win? Think of the logic of the argument. It makes no sense as far as the character of God is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you dare to presume upon God? Are you rationalizing His providence to agree with your beliefs? God did preserve His word and it is accurately conveyed in the manuscript evidence and in numerous translations. However, it is not confined to one particular set of human words...It is the expressed will of God. God did in fact preserve His word. He just didn't do it the way the KJVO's demand. We should not be about judging whether God has behaved logically- He has and the truth agrees completely with the empirical evidence. If we cannot comprehend His logic then we should conform to God, not demand that He conform to us. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Now, on to your questions.
1. On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?
For now, let's go on the evidence of what "products" are produced by the different Greek texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? You demanded that your questions be answered not evaded. If you have proof then produce it. If not, say so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The TR is primarily used for the KJV, and now the NKJV…all other "versions" use primarily the other two. The other two Greek texts are preferred by the Roman Catholic Church, the TR and the KJV are basically rejected by the Catholic Church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> REMINDER: The TR originated from a Catholic scholar. It was endorsed by the Pope himself. If association with the Catholic church is a disqualifier then the TR/KJV are out. But, we probably wouldn't have a Bible at all if the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not preserved and copied manuscripts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you argue with a Jehovah's Witness, and you tell him you will not use the "New World Translation", they prefer to use the NIV or the NASB…because it falls more in line with their "version". Comparing the KJV to the other two main "versions", look at the number of times the Deity of Christ is "lessened".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
#1- Don't argue theology with a JW...Their training is to tell not to listen. The only way to reach them is to ask questions they can't answer and get them to find their own answers. #2- A JW at work visits me from time to time. She frequently brings a KJV with her. She has been trained to reach the abundance of KJVO's in our area by not offending them. Her main target is always the deity of Christ. The NASB rendering of John 1:14 and Titus 2:13 left her speechless. Titus 2:13 is particularly effective. Its authenticity cannot be argued. The KJV just translates it poorly. Another JW recently asked me to order a KJV for her. It seems to be their second favorite version! The KJV, RSV, and ASV have all been the official Bible of the JW's. They frequently quote the KJV in their literature. I have never seen them quote or use the NIV or NASB. #3- The NWT is different from all other versions because it was written to support their errant theology. If you have proof that the NASB or NIV are somehow in agreement with the NWT, show it.
#4 You gave two verses to try to prove that the MV's are weak on the deity of Christ. The KJV addition to I John 5:7-8 is highly disputed and probably not original- this is in JW training literature so in their mind you have lost the argument just by using it. As for the other, look at Luke 2:48 in the KJV. Mary calls Joseph the father of Jesus. Mary is definitely an expert on the subject. She is obviously referring to Joseph in an adoptive sense- just as the verse you cite is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, you presume upon God. He has provided everything we need to know Him.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
My position regarding #5 is even broader. I not only am not TR-only (as all TRs differ, although I use the Scrivener TR as my Greek bible, I have questions regarding some of the readings, even Scrivener said he could not account for about a half dozen of them!) nor MT-Only, but an advocate of the Traditional Text, of which the TRs are representitive as is the MT. Does that muddy the water even more? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Muddy the water? Yes, a little, but not for me, but probably for the KJV-Onlies. They may think you're not on their side as much as they had hoped.

I can see that it is obviously broader than the TR. But broader than the MT? I dunno. It seems to me your position is BOTH broader and narrower. By the "Traditional Text," I take that to mean the general stream of what is commonly labeled the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I admit I am operating at a disadvantage(not knowing original biblical languages) but I can usually discern the most cogent arguments in English, which does limit my investigation to most logical debaters since I can't crosscheck them, in the linguistic technical sense. Which would be a greater problem if one confined oneself to one writer the way that Ruckman-knights seem to do, for example.
[/list]

However, is not the "Majority Text" (by defintion, in theory) the readings which enjoy the widest dissemination throughout the raw extant textual material? If so, would not (logically speaking) any other textual presentation based on other principles be a narrowing of the issue?

What I mean is, as long as one says, I favor the "traditional text," one has a broad, general, somewhat undefined position (albeit limited to Byzantine side of the spectrum.) But when one commits to a particular non-MT textual presentation, one immediately narrows the question.

If you hold the TT position as I describe it above, one of the KJV-Only objections immediately comes to the fore. Which is, a lack of 100% certainty of the wording of the autographa. Such a "scholarly" position, if contemplated by the folks in the first four KJVO positions you tried to describe, will earn you the epithet of Bible corruptor, will it not?

Because...

As I see it, the kind of so-called "jot-n-tittle" precision that KJV-Onlyism pressumes and demands, cannot abide the textual criticism implicit in your messages.

cordially,

CNM

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Of course, this categorizing business can get out of hand. It's okay as long as it identifies specific issues to address and the best approaches for constructive dialogue on those issues. Otherwise, I see no point in subdividing the categories ad infinitum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Terry... all of us like to think our viewpoints are sophisticated, and defy definition. You've experienced the howling that comes when persons or groups feel they are being broad-brushed unfairly. I agree there is a point when subdivisions get ridiculous, but I also think that there are valid distinctions to be made.

My list would not look quite like Dr. Cassidy's, but I'll take a stab at this categorization thing.

In decending order from most extreme, to slightly less extreme...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Double Inspiration view: the notion that the Holy Scriptures were reinspired in 1611 in the form of the King James Version. (Readers will gather my opinion of this view in an earlier post in this thread.) Suffice it to say, however, that this view is so bizarre, and without any reasonable explanation that it can only be described as the fantasies of deluded minds.

<LI>The Perfect Preservation view: this view is the more temperate sister of view #1. The idea that God had so superintended the copying of the originals and subsequent generation copies up to and through Erasmus and to the KJV translators, that they (the KJV translators) were able to make the perfect translation choices that give the ultimate in perfect rendering from one language to another. We can, therefore, say by faith, that the KJV is an English mirror version of the originals. This view is wholly unsupportable by empirical observation, historical record, and textual & linguistic sciences. Moreover, it's NOT really a "faith" position at all! It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitor it just has to be that way, or God's a liar.

<LI>The TR-Only view: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another. So they can hold the same 100% perfect preservation up to the Textus Receptus. This view also fails upon analysis the way that view number two does because of the very simple fact that out of the 5000+ New Testament textual pieces, no two manuscripts agree perfectly. This then necessitates the science of textual criticism, which is in fact the way the TR came to be.

<LI>The Majority text/Traditional text view: this/these view(s) are scholarly attempts to derive the closest wording to the original wording, with a prejudice for or exclusive use of the Byzantine type manuscripts. As I see it, the MT and TT advocates differ only in degree, not in kind.
[/list]

I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best," that's why I only use it, are stating a preference position. In such a view, the inference is that such people are not busy about making it normative for everyone else.

Views 1-3 are clearly in the KJV-Only camp mindset. View #4, it depends. It depends on their view of the modern versions and the critical text.

The dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is... does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Mainly, my point is that we should not tolerate pugnacious text/version supremacists
(or "onlies") of any kind -- regardless of the specific issue they are arguing about. To be fair, that also applies to troublemakers who malign the KJV or KJVO's just for spite <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I understand. Your point is in regard to a mindset and an attitude, not really a theological position.

As far as my writing style, such is the hazards of an apologist.

cordially,

CNM

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:

Well Terry... all of us like to think our viewpoints are sophisticated, and defy definition. You've experienced the howling that comes when persons or groups feel they are being broad-brushed unfairly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true. It's a good thing none of us preachers have that problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I agree there is a point when subdivisions get ridiculous, but I also think that there are valid distinctions to be made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, and I am quite impressed with your list. I see some similarities between yours, James White's and Bro. Cassidy's lists, but I like yours very much. In fact, I would like to quote it on my website, if I may.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitor it just has to be that way, or God's a liar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and since they think they've got God on their side, they won't back down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The TR-Only view: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen -- especially languages that use entirely different alphabets!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best," that's why I only use it, are stating a preference position. In such a view, the inference is that such people are not busy about making it normative for everyone else.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, until some of these innocent and well-intentioned folks become Sunday School teachers or lay preachers, and their passive KJV preference inevitably gets brought up in Sunday School or church. On the other hand, I guess if the pastor has done a good job stating his own position on the KJV issue, hopefully that fire will have been put out before it starts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is... does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yes, I understand. Your point is in regard to a mindset and an attitude, not really a theological position.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. However, I guess I'm being a little hypocritical on that, because I'm currently constructing a website that deals with the theological aspects also.

It seems part of me wants to be a peacemaker, and the other part of me wants to shove some common sense down KJVOs' throats. O, wretched man that I am . . .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As far as my writing style, such is the hazards of an apologist.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand. And, I'm glad you understand me too.

Terry

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

 

Gentlemen,

To all of you who are commenting on this subject, two questions:

1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will. I think no one here departs from that belief. So here's the question: Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE? Just answer the question plainly. Forget if its the KJV, or the TR, or the NIV, or the NASB, or the Vaticanus, or whichever. For the moment, let's drop the preferences. Why would God, Who reveals Himself through His Word, (and yes I understand He reveals Himself through creation and other means as well, let's not get distracted), and we will be held accountable to our obedience to that Word, be it under the law, placing our faith in the "right things", is it faith and works, is it strictly faith, etc., etc...are we trying to say, on the "preservation" issue here, that God would make His Word perfect for the people who lived before 100 A.D., and progressively from then on, His Word would become more and more diluted? Is that what were saying? You guys need to wake up and take a serious look inside yourselves for a minute. Forget that I stick with the KJV, that's just a distraction for you right now. Stick with the question of "If God inspired His Word, would He also have something to do with preserving it?".

2. Second question. To the ones who said they are preachers...are you guys saying that you stand in your pulpits (figuratively speaking) and tell your "flock" of which you have God ordained responsibility over...and tell them there no longer remains a God inspired Word, that it has been gone for several centuries...but hey, cheer up! God still gets the job done! Is that what you tell them? Come on gentleman, please, wake up!


To Dr. Bob,
My apologies for the comment on not answering my questions...I know that you did. I had typed that prior to seeing all of your message to me...then never erased it.

I certainly don't agree with your answers, but I wanted to clear the air on that.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said he had "nothing" to do with it? I think the bigger question for you is "If God miraculously preserved his word as you claim, then how come no two manuscripts match? Was God unable to get more than one right? And where did God tell us which one is the right one?

I for one think God did have something to do with preserving his word. He did it through providential means.

You ask the question why would God do something the way he did? Job asked the same question. Perhaps reading God's response to Job in Job 37-41 would prevent such a question. We will never be able to grasp the mind and purpose of God. Why would God save any of us? Who knows? It is beyond comprehension. "Why" does not seem to me to be an appropriate question. The simple answer is that God didn't tell us why and that means that we don't need to know.

To your second question, I am a pastor and I preach from the NASB and I regularly tell my people they are responsible for obedience to the word of God. The word of God is any faithful translation. That is what you are missing. You have established the KJV as teh standard (without any Scriptural support) and then said everything else is wrong because it differs. Yet it is clear that any faithful translation is the word of God. IMHO, a pastor does his people a great disservice when he denies them the word of God in their own language and vernacular.

You made a bit of an error when you said that God preserved his word perfectly till AD 100. The OT was likely not perfectly preserved at that time (just see the LXX for the discrepancies). The NT was written but it is likely that as soon as the first copy was made, there were scribal errors introduced into it. I would say those scribals errors in hand copying are very similar to printing errors that you admit are in the various editions of the KJV. They do not affect the authority or truthfulness of the text or message. They are the results of finite man.

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi MoS, your question presumes too much. The topic of this thread is the definitions of the various KJV-Only positions. With those definitions stated, it is natural for writers to then offer comment on the validity and consequences of each. This is what we might call the negative approach to the issue, meaning that cases are being made to refute those positions but no positive alternatives are being offered. Sounds like you may have an idea for a new thread. You could ask: "did God preserve His Word, if so, in what way?"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Why would God, Who reveals Himself through His Word, (and yes I understand He reveals Himself through creation and other means as well, let's not get distracted), and we will be held accountable to our obedience to that Word, be it under the law, placing our faith in the "right things", is it faith and works, is it strictly faith, etc., etc...are we trying to say, on the "preservation" issue here, that God would make His Word perfect for the people who lived before 100 A.D., and progressively from then on, His Word would become more and more diluted?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The substantive problem with your question is that it is a rational argument, without Biblical or historical support. Therefore (if it's premises are granted) can only be accepted for it's logical force. If on the other hand, it's premises are disputed the argument loses all of it's vigor as it has no other legs to stand on.

cordially,

CNM

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
However, is not the "Majority Text" (by defintion, in theory) the readings which enjoy the widest dissemination throughout the raw extant textual material? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In theory, yes. In practice, no. The MT, as published by Hodges and Farstad (Thomas Nelson 1982), often contains readings that are accounted for in less than 15% of the MSS. Besides, the majority readings do not always, in my opinion, constitute the best readings. We often have to go to the ancient vernaculars to get some idea of what the best readings should be. 1 John 5:7-8 is an excellent of this. It is a reading in the vast minority, yet it must be included or the grammar of the passage is so damaged that it makes God appear to be ignorant of simple rules of Greek grammar.

As to what the most radical of the KJVOs think of me, well, I really don't care. I have a Hebrew bible (Ben Chayyim) that is authoritative, and a Greek bible (Scrivener's 1894 Annotated Greek New Testament) which is also authoritative. There are about 6 words in that GNT that Scrivener could not account for, but, the men who did the original work did such a good job on the rest I will trust in their judgment, and in the Providence of God, to insure I have a GNT that will not lead me astray.

I also have an English bible I can recommend to the people whom God has placed in my pastoral watchcare, the KJV, which I can honestly say is the inspired (in the derivative sence), inerrant (without proven error of fact), infallible (the promises will never fail to be kept and the prophecies will never fail to come to pass), preserved (an accurate and authoritative transmission) word of God in the English language. I can tell my people, with a little study, they can trust their English bible not to lead them astray, and that they don't need an "Authoritative Magisterium" to tell them what the word of God really is and really means. No priestly class necessary for them to know the Lord personally and exercise their soul liberty.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will. I think no one here departs from that belief. So here's the question: Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see two glaring errors in your presuppositions. The first is that "God inspired the original manuscripts." God did not inspire manuscripts. The bible nowhere says God inspired "manuscripts." God inspired words. God did not concern himself with velum, papyrus, ink, etc., but with words. It is the words of God which are inspired, not manuscripts, ink, paper, etc. And it is those words that God has preserved for us in the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek languages. As long as the words are the same words God inspired, they are God's inspired words. It matters not if they were penned by Moses, Joshua, David, Matthew, Paul, Peter, James, or John, or if they were carefully copied by a copyist, or if they are scrawled in magic marker on the restroom wall, if they are God's words they are inspired words! Secondly, God did not supernaturally intervene every time a copy was made to insure the manuscripts containing the words remained inspired. The words were already inspired, and copying them did not deminish that inspiration! God has preserved His word (and His words) in that He has breathed into those words His breath of life (that is what "inspiration" means) and that which God breathes into becomes an eternally living thing, perserved by the breath of God for all eternity! God breathed into man His breath of life and man became an eternally living being (all people who have ever been alive are still alive today, somewhere!), and He breathed into His word the breath of life and His word is now an eternally living word ("quick" in Hebrews 4:12, refering to the word of God, means "living!) When those living words are properly translated into a receptor language those words do not lose their power, but become the word of God in that language. That is what preservation is all about!

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]