Who in favor of the CT as superior to the TR has said that the two are the same?! There is indeed more agreement than disagreement -- but the two are certainly not the same.
To sentimental folks.
-
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!
1611 KJV only and anger
- Thread starter beameup
- Start date
- Status
Who in favor of the CT as superior to the TR has said that the two are the same?! There is indeed more agreement than disagreement -- but the two are certainly not the same.
To sentimental folks.
If God did indeed promise to preserve his Word, then it MUST be in the world, unless you believe God a liar.
Two texts that differ by nearly 3000 words in the original Greek cannot possibly be the same. Verses and even an entire passage shown in the TR are lacking in the CT, they cannot be the same by any definition.
The last point could be debated, but generally speaking the KJB is the standard by which the MVs are judged. Proponents of the MVs always argue that the MVs have no significant difference from the KJB and no doctrines are affected. The KJB is held as the standard by which the MVs are judged.
Do you believe the MVs and the CT text superior to the KJB and the TR text?
This entire statement is a fallacy. Don't put words in God's mouth- or mine, as a matter of fact.
I'm off to bed. G'night.
Well, maybe after you get a good night's sleep you can explain how my statement is a fallacy.
And where did I put words in your mouth? You have not said anything, I don't know your position.
KJV-only inconsistencies
The first two editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus did not have three whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, and 1 John 5:7] that are found in some later editions. Some later editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus and some edited by Stephanus did not have two verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36]. KJV-only advocates still accept those editions as being the Textus Receptus even though they were lacking some verses. Are you advocating inconsistencies or double standards?
KJV-only authors have referred to the KJV as "an edition of Tyndale's" or a "revision of Tyndale's." Tyndale's Bible did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 because they were not in the edition of the Textus Receptus from which he translated. Other pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and which are placed on the KJV-only view's line of pure Bibles also did not have those two verses. Luther's German Bible, which is also placed on the KJV-only view's stream of pure Bibles, did not have all three of those verses in the editions printed during Luther's lifetime.
The first two editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus did not have three whole verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, and 1 John 5:7] that are found in some later editions. Some later editions of the Textus Receptus edited by Erasmus and some edited by Stephanus did not have two verses [Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36]. KJV-only advocates still accept those editions as being the Textus Receptus even though they were lacking some verses. Are you advocating inconsistencies or double standards?
KJV-only authors have referred to the KJV as "an edition of Tyndale's" or a "revision of Tyndale's." Tyndale's Bible did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 because they were not in the edition of the Textus Receptus from which he translated. Other pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and which are placed on the KJV-only view's line of pure Bibles also did not have those two verses. Luther's German Bible, which is also placed on the KJV-only view's stream of pure Bibles, did not have all three of those verses in the editions printed during Luther's lifetime.
The KJV is not the proper standard for judging and evaluating other English translations.
The KJV translators themselves maintained that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the standard and authority for trying or evaluating translations.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
What was the standard in English before 1611?
Where are the originals? They did not have the originals, they had copies. There is no way to know the exact text of the originals.
So, whether you like it or not, if you believe the inerrant word of God exists, you must believe in preservation.
So, the question becomes which of the texts is the true preserved text?
You must believe that one text is true and all others are corrupt (because they are different), or you must believe all texts have been corrupted. Thus you do not believe in real preservation.
This talk of the "originals" is nothing but diversion and misdirection, the originals have not existed since the very early centuries.
It is impossible to find the answer through scholarship, as the originals were worn out and lost long ago. A person must depend on faith.
You can spin your wheels all you want, you will never find the truth this way. You must believe.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Now you claim the standard is the text. Earlier you stated that the KJV is the standard. They are not identical. Which is the standard? Which is the measuring rod?
You are the one running around in circles, as C4K so aptly pointed out. That is fallacious at it's base.
You made a statement that cannot be proven-
"If God did indeed promise to preserve his Word, then it MUST be in the world,..."
Then you judged everyone who does not subscribe to this unproven allegation by saying, "unless you believe God a liar."
I know what I believe. I believe that God is much bigger than you or I. He doesn't need for us to go around "defending" the Bible, and He has never commanded for us to do that- that's HIS job anyway. OUR job is to proclaim it, trust it and live it.
Y'know, if we all started doing that we wouldn't have time for these silly discussions...!
I'm awake at 3:30 a.m. on a Sunday morning because I'm excited to preach His Word this morning. I know someone's life is going to be changed by it. I can't wait to see what He is going to do. I'm preaching from Ephesians 6:18-20.
I pray that we all have a great day today- maybe this will be the day we all see Jesus face-to-face!
Well, I could post a long list of proof text verses to support why I believe God has promised to preserve his word, but I am sure you've seen them before.
It was Mat 4:4 that convinced me that God had preserved his word when I was a boy. Jesus said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
When I read this verse, I made an assumption. I assumed that if God expects me to live by EVERY word that he has spoken, then EVERY word must be available to me. I don't believe God would expect me to live by every word he has spoken, and then hide it from me, or anyone else. This is all based on the assumption that God is just.
So, you are right, I can't prove it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigh...
Again, you are missing the point. I am not saying that God has not preserved His Word. He has, definitely and abundantly, in a variety of translations. That is where we differ. You cannot accept the fact that God can (better yet, DOES) indeed use and permit various translations and source texts, and I can. That in a nutshell is our difference.
Time to shower and go to staff prayer meeting- it's gonna be a great day- I can feel it in my soul. :godisgood:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
So again, how do you trust 'every word' when the 1611 and 1769 editions have a MAJOR two word difference in 1 John 5v12?
Well, it was that word EVERY.
God repeatedly warns not to add or diminish from his word. How is it possible to know whether words have been added or diminished unless a person can know the correct text?
You are correct, I do not believe God's word is preserved in two texts that are very different. That doesn't even make sense. I have a '58 Premier Twin-Eight guitar amplifier that is 100% original. If I replace a single resistor or tube, it is no longer preserved, and it's value will decrease. I cannot add to it or diminish it, or it would not be preserved.
We have been through this, words must be added when translating from one language to another, you know that. This does not change the source text. There were several textual changes made between 1611 and 1769 to clarify the text, I don't have a problem with that.
This is altogether different from the CT text that omits (or the TR adds, according to one's perspective) dozens of verses, and even a complete passage.
By the way, do you know how many verses there are in the book of Mark? 678.
If you omit the twelve last verses the CT says shouldn't be there, how many do you have? 666!
Mark? 666? Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
You worry about two words and overlook nearly 3000.
Your illustration fails. We're not talking about something man places a value on, or that depends upon man to 'preserve' it. It is GOD who has promised to preserve His Word. He places the value on it. We have nothing to do with that part. He did that when it was written and He's still doing it now even though some folks might not understand or like HOW He does it.
Later.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Again, no I don't I don't use the CT.
You emphasis the word EVERY. Which KJV is totally perfect word for word?
Which is the standard, the TR (which edition) or the KJV (which edition)? The KJV is not even a perfect translation from any TR.
A good dictionary is a good source for the various meanings of the term "word". For example, the Oxford dictionary says, "a sound or combination of sounds forming a meaningful element of speech..."
We attempt to wrestle with "words" when we should be concerned with "thoughts"; the thoughts that make up the essence of the "word".
This is true whether we compare Greek, Hebrew, English, French or whatever language you prefer.
In England, and Canada, we sit on a chesterfield, whilst in Chicago they smoked Chesterfields.
Perhaps God has preserved His word,not each literal word, but His Word; his concepts, whatever language we happen to read it.
A good reason to learn the art of hermeneutics before we learn the Bible.
Cheers,
Jim
We attempt to wrestle with "words" when we should be concerned with "thoughts"; the thoughts that make up the essence of the "word".
This is true whether we compare Greek, Hebrew, English, French or whatever language you prefer.
In England, and Canada, we sit on a chesterfield, whilst in Chicago they smoked Chesterfields.
Perhaps God has preserved His word,not each literal word, but His Word; his concepts, whatever language we happen to read it.
A good reason to learn the art of hermeneutics before we learn the Bible.
Cheers,
Jim
I know there are many so-called TR texts, I use that as a general term when applying to the KJB. A better name might be the original KJB text, which no longer exists.
What is the complaint against the KJB? That it uses archaic words. Not a problem, simply include a footnote giving the modern definition of the old word. Many KJBs do this.
But the KJBs and MVs often give a different understanding to scripture. 1 Tim 3:16 is a great example, the KJB says, "God was manifest in the flesh" while the MVs say "he was manifest in the flesh". Now that is a HUGE difference, the KJB clearly teaches Jesus is God, while the MVs say Jesus was manifested in flesh. What is special about that? EVERYBODY is manifested in the flesh.
You can use 1 Tim 3:16 to refute a JW who denies Jesus is God. You cannot do this with a MV, the MVs agree exactly with the NWT.
So, the KJB and MVs are not teaching the same thing, they are very different in many verses.
I debated 1 Jn 3:9 with Freeatlast. The KJB says a person born of God CANNOT sin. I believe this to be in the absolute meaning of cannot, while the NIV and ESV define this as "going on" or "practicing" sin. Very different meaning that affects doctrine.
I could go on and on, but you have heard all these arguments before, I am not going to change your mind.
I simply believe by faith that God has promised to preserve his word, and in English that preserved word is the KJB. I can't prove it, nobody can. Those who support the CT and the MVs cannot prove their text is the preserved text.
More fallacies. #1 is laughable.
#2- We have just as much proof as you do- that is to say- none.
- Status