Christ's body, broken for you

Your KJVO beliefs differ from the Bible. You cannot find one verse that says the KJV is perfect nor that any translation is perfect. No preservation verse you can point to was inspired in English therefore to satisfy your demand for a word for word, perfect, inspired Bible- no English book can ever be the Word of God. Period.

Since KJVOnlyism differs from the Bible (even the KJV itself), what is it you believe? Where do you stand?

 

Perfection is a strawman argument. NNE has the original autograph copies of the Bible. Paul did not have the OT autographs when he wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We do not have them now nor will we ever get them again. God did not preserve them by keep the original autographs, God preserved them through inerrancy even to proper translations (whichever the language) to people who do not understand Greek or Hebrew.

Inerrancy is being not liable to be proven false or mistaken. Any extant manuscript is not part of the lineage of the Inspired Word of God, if they contain falsehood (which is deliberate) or a mistake (which is not deliberate).

An important difference is that we are not talking about maybe finding something that could be translated differently or better (which is based on opinion). We are looking for a clear error that cannot be reasonably explained as a preference.

As far as the KJV using "God Forbid," that is the translation of the Greek phrase "ou me" (pronounced "oo may"). This phrase means (as one Greek professor says) absolutely no way, never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in a million billion years no. I think "God Forbid" is a very good way to state that.

(For clarity I believe that God's Word is perfect. We do not need to correct it nor do we need to add to it. But people use the word "perfect" in a manner that is foreign to the Bible's claim.)

[ December 16, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: 2peter1_10 ]

 

Good question, but since I have joined this magpies nest I have seen many posts from people who may cause others to doubt the KJV;WHY????

 

... and who told you the KJV was perfect? That's my point exactly. The scripture does not support your claim. In fact, it disproves it.

 

Perfection is still a strawman argument (refer to my previous posting), Why are you trying to find this "perfect translation" when it is linguistically impossible. The KJV is inerrant, I cannot say that about any English translation that followed it so far.

 

Perfection is still a strawman argument (refer to my previous posting), Why are you trying to find this "perfect translation" when it is linguistically impossible. The KJV is inerrant, I cannot say that about any English translation that followed it so far.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I really don't intend to play semantical games with you. I was responding to Homebound's posts. Her claim is most definitely one of word for word perfection that disallows any variance from the particular wording of the KJV. So, I am not the one creating a strawman. I am trying to dispel the one homebound clings to. Read Swordsman's post above. He certainly assigns perfection to the KJV.

As a matter of fact, I believe the KJV is perfect in the sense that it is doctrinally sound and complete... but I would say the same about the NKJV and NASB since they teach the same gospel and doctrines.

For your part, what standard do you compare translations against to determine if the are inerrant or not? And because so many of the KJVO persuasion seem determined to redefine words, how do you define "inerrant"?

[ December 16, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

No one, I searched out the different texts & bible versions ect & the Alexandrian bibles come up short. What part of that is hard to understand????

[ December 16, 2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

No one, I searched out the different texts & bible versions ect & the Alexandrian bibles come up short. What part of that is hard to understand????</font>[/QUOTE]What was your standard?

 

[ December 16, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]

 

I use the dictionary to define words (it avoids making that error that you mentioned).

The American Heritage College Dictionary (third edition, Copyright 1997).
Inerrant - 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors.
Error - 1. An act, an assertion, or a belief that unintentionally deviates from that what is correct, right, or true. 2. The condition of having incorrect or false knowledge. (I did not include definitions 3-6 because they were not related to the discussion.)

I make the doctrinal assumption of the perpetuity of the scriptures. Any manuscript line that did not survive use for an extended period of time is deemed unreliable in its variant reading. Also, I am skeptical of the lineage from the Roman Catholic Church because they killed people for owning a copy and because of their flagrant disregard for Biblical authority concerning doctrine.

The line that we give the name "textus receptus" has within it the Old Latin texts (translated c.157 A.D.) agree with the Bynzatine text. This text was used by the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain and the Continent; the Albigenese, etc...all of whom were western Christians that did not bow to the authority of Rome. The agreement with the Bynzatine text means that the Latin was translated from a Greek text that was not Alexandrian. This also means that the textus receptus line was around before 157 A.D. (Note: the Bynzatines did not translate their text from Latin.)

I also want to make clear that I speak about lines not individual manuscripts. A single manuscript does not make an authority.

 

Poor HomeBound --- He's a He, not a She! I would guess that his moniker means he's going to Heaven when he dies or when he is caught up in the clouds.

 

To all you KJVO ites

NO TWO EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS (byzantine) ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT SO HOW CAN YOU SAY THE KJV IS INERRANT. GET REAL PEOPLE THE KJV IS ONLY A GOOD TRANSLATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND GOD SAYS HE WILL PRESERVE HIS WORD IN HEAVEN! NOT ON EARTH IN ENGLISH ONLY.

 

No one, I searched out the different texts & bible versions ect & the Alexandrian bibles come up short. What part of that is hard to understand????</font>[/QUOTE]I am impressed. You have read, evaluated, and considered 5,000+ Greek mss... or maybe it was just the 250 or so of the Alexandrian family?

BTW, when you say they came up short, what did you use for your standard? Your opinion? That of another man?

 

I thought I had seen evidence that Homebound was female on another forum. I apologize for referring to him incorrectly.

 

OK accepting that the Majority text is the true line and that it provides the standard by which we are to judge inerrancy then how can you possibly defend the KJV in its use of "God forbid" when 'Theos' is unsupported by any Greek? How do you assign inerrancy to the KJV when it contains the expanded version of I John 5:7-8 and "book" instead of "tree" in Rev 22:19?

In order to accept "God forbid", you either establish a standard that even the NIV can pass or attempt a double standard by granting the KJV latitude that you would deny other versions.

Your assumptions are not only unsupported by evidence and logic, they contradict them. The more generations a hand copied document line contains, the more likely that errors will be introduced.

Yet at the same time you trust Erasmus to collate the perfect Greek text? Surely you see the inconsistency here... You trust him to select at random a handful of incomplete mss and collate them into an inerrant text while denying that Nestle-Aland was able to come up with an accurate text considering 100's if not 1000's.

We did not give it that name. The title was coined to sell printed copies of it in 1624.

This sounds a great deal like presumptions seeking evidence rather than evidence pointing to a conclusion.

Not so. The evidence points to the idea that the older the Byz. ms is the more it looks like the Alexandrian.

There is no such animal as a textus receptus line. The TR is a representative of the BT/MT.

Probably not. But Erasmus acknowledged using his late Latin Vulgate to create part of the TR and there is little doubt that the KJV translators were also influenced by the LV.

The TR does not equal the MT/BT. The TR deviates from the MT in places.

You appear to have made up your mind what your conclusion would be then imparted on a single-minded journey to reach that pre-determined end.

[ December 17, 2002, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Amen brother Thanks for pointing that out for me.

You know, I don't know Greek or Hebrew, actually the only language I know is English. I've never seen a MSS and as far as I know there are none. What I do know is that the King James Bible is God's perserved Word for me today and if it says "broken," "God forbid," "two-toes up, two-toes down," then I accept it by faith. It is my standard without compromise.

The question I have is, to those who do not believe in a perfect Bible, what is your final standard?

Something else, why not "broken." Jesus' "body" was broken for us. Swipped, spit upon, stabbed, nailed into, and hung on a cross. This might sound weird but, thank God His body was broken.