A need for a reverse-litmus test

[Trotter]

It is laughable when people that support the CT, talk about how “God suddenly stopped preserving His Word.”

He never did and He never will.

But to think, that the Bible must continually be changing, for God to “preserve” it, makes absolutely no sense at all.

If it’s preserved, it’s preserved!
--------------------------------------------------
As I keep saying, “preservation” is the issue.

I believe that God has preserved His Word, while modern scholarship see the need for more and more discoveries, in an attempt to “find” the Bible, that God allowed to get lost.

You seem to forget that the bible was not written in English, period. Nor was it codified in a single manuscript. What we have are translations of the consildations of the manuscripts we DO have.

The KJV was translated from most of the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. A whole lot more have been discovered since then, with most predating those used in the translation of the KJV. It seems that most who push the KJVO stance forget these basic facts. None of this discounts the KJV as it is a great work for what they had at the time, using much of the work that had already been done in earlier translations.

It just gripes me to no end that the translations made after the KJV are slighted, discredited, and down right condemned by these same KJVO folks (including you, SL) becuase none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV. Well, none can as those perished in a fire not long after the KJV was published, not to mention that they were compiled just for the KJV and not something anyone else had access to to begin with.

Nor were the translators and compilers of the KJV the only spiritual individuals who have ever worked on such a work (even though you and yours try to make out that they were a half-inch shy of being divine and everyone since then are pimples on the devil's backside). There have been many godly individuals and groups who have poured their lives into researching and translating God's word into the modern language of the time. I said "language" and not "English" because English is not the only language in the world, nor is it the only one God knows or uses.

If you want a litmus test, use the words of the original languages as your measuring stick and not what one group thought 400 years ago.

 

[annsni]

You seem to forget that the bible was not written in English, period. Nor was it codified in a single manuscript. What we have are translations of the consildations of the manuscripts we DO have.

Exactly. And I don't believe any manuscripts agree 100% with each other, do they?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Trotter

You said.....

“You seem to forget that the bible was not written in English, period. Nor was it codified in a single manuscript. What we have are translations of the consildations of the manuscripts we DO have.”

I have not forgotten that.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“The KJV was translated from most of the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century.”

That’s great. So God had preserved His Word for us by the “early 17th century”.
Case closed!
--------------------------------------------------
You continued........

“A whole lot more have been discovered since then, with most predating those used in the translation of the KJV. It seems that most who push the KJVO stance forget these basic facts. None of this discounts the KJV as it is a great work for what they had at the time, using much of the work that had already been done in earlier translations.

I could talk about why, those particular manuscripts that were so old, were still around and are in such good condition, but you have already established that God had preserved his word by the “early 17th century.”

Therefore, what more needs to be done!?!

It was either preserved, or it wasn’t!
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“It just gripes me to no end that the translations made after the KJV are slighted, discredited, and down right condemned by these same KJVO folks (including you, SL) becuase none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV. Well, none can as those perished in a fire not long after the KJV was published, not to mention that they were compiled just for the KJV and not something anyone else had access to to begin with.”

Sorry to upset you so much, but did you read the words you just wrote.....
You said, I slight the MV’s....“because none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV”

Well shouldn’t I be upset?
As you said, these manuscripts were God’s Word(from the “early 17th century”);
Therefore when Bible publishers use “different manuscripts”, shouldn’t that make all of us upset?!?
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......

“Nor were the translators and compilers of the KJV the only spiritual individuals who have ever worked on such a work (even though you and yours try to make out that they were a half-inch shy of being divine and everyone since then are pimples on the devil's backside). There have been many godly individuals and groups who have poured their lives into researching and translating God's word into the modern language of the time.
I said "language" and not "English" because English is not the only language in the world, nor is it the only one God knows or uses.”

Now your building a straw man. We are talking about “Greek manuscripts”, not translations.

But....if you want to talk about translations; Tell me, what language are the NIV, or the ASB, or the NASB, etc. written in?

Certainly they can’t be in English, because as you said, we already had God’s Word preserved in English, as far back as the “early 17th century”.

 

[annsni]

That’s great. So God had preserved His Word for us by the “early 17th century”.
Case closed!

Great word twisting!! I'm glad doctors don't have that same belief. My daughter would be dead right now.

I could talk about why, those particular manuscripts that were so old, were still around and are in such good condition, but you have already established that God had preserved his word by the “early 17th century.”

Therefore, what more needs to be done!?!

Ahhh - right!! We know that God hid all those other manuscripts until the 17th century because they were bad. But then He failed and let them be found!! Forbid!! Oh but wait!! They agree 99% of the time with the former manuscripts so that must mean.....

Sorry to upset you so much, but did you read the words you just wrote.....
You said, I slight the MV’s....“because none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV”

Well shouldn’t I be upset?
As you said, these manuscripts were God’s Word(from the “early 17th century”);
Therefore when Bible publishers use “different manuscripts”, shouldn’t that make all of us upset?!?

No, why? Because they are bad? No they are not. If they were, the ALL of the Bibles we have would be bad as well.

Now your building a straw man. We are talking about “Greek manuscripts”, not translations.

But....if you want to talk about translations; Tell me, what language are the NIV, or the ASB, or the NASB, etc. written in?

Certainly they can’t be in English, because as you said, we already had God’s Word preserved in English, as far back as the “early 17th century”.

God's Word is preserved in the ESV that I have sitting next to me. It is also preserved in the NASB that I have open on my computer.

 

[jbh28]

To many(even here on the BB), the source of the NKJV, is still an open question.

It shouldn't be. It uses the TR. There are a few people that disagree, yet they are unable to produce any examples of the NKJV deviating from the TR.

 

[Trotter]

Your illogic completely amazes me, still, as does you trying to tell God what He can and cannot do.

 

[preachinjesus]

I don't understand why y'all try to reason with the KJVO crowd. It's just not a wise use of your time. The theological, historical, hermeneutical, and philosophical distance between your positions is so insurmountable I can't imagine it's ever going to be covered.

Plus half the time I think stilllearning is just yanking ya around.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi preachinjesus


I wish I were, just “yanking them around”, but this is serious business.

When a Christian has been convinced, that the Bible, is no more than simply a work of man, that is susceptible to all the errors and mistakes of any other man-made book;
That Christian, has lost something very precious........
Psalms 119:162
“I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.”

When we are unable to fully trust every word in our Bible, to be God’s perfectly preserved Word for us, then it has lost some of it’s value to us.
---------------------------------------
Oh by the way, if you look back through this thread, you will see that I am not really KJVO.

Because we have gone beyond the KJVO issue, and have gotten into the issue of preservation.

 

[jbh28]

Hi preachinjesus


I wish I were, just “yanking them around”, but this is serious business.

When a Christian has been convinced, that the Bible, is no more than simply a work of man, that is susceptible to all the errors and mistakes of any other man-made book;
That Christian, has lost something very precious........
Psalms 119:162
“I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.”

When we are unable to fully trust every word in our Bible, to be God’s perfectly preserved Word for us, then it has lost some of it’s value to us.
---------------------------------------

1. Nobody denies that God has preserved the Bible
2. The KJV as with ALL translations are man made translations
3. The KJV translators didn't believe their work was perfect.
4. the KJV translators didn't use a singular text for their work showing that they didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed.

Oh by the way, if you look back through this thread, you will see that I am not really KJVO.

so you say...

Answer this honestly: Is the KJV perfectly translated?

If you say no, then which one is per your argument.
If you say yes, then why wouldn't you be kjvo if it's perfect?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I was given a NKJV as a gift, when I was a young Christian; And put away my KJB, and started using it; But I went back to the KJB when I saw all the changes the NKJV had made.

Could you give one example where the NKJV translators deviated from the same textual body as Geneva and King James translations?

By the way, that same website that you give so much credence to condemns the LXX which you hold to as a support for your theory of one version onlyism.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi jbh28

I have no trouble being honest.

No, the KJB, isn’t “perfectly translated”.

So therefore you asked........

“..........which one is per your argument.”

As I said earlier in this thread, when I was asked..........

“So you would advocate the possibility of more than one version?”

And I said.........

“Absolutely(I always have)!
Providing the version, was translated from time tested manuscripts.”

-------------------------------------------------
The “issue” isn’t which translation is perfect, but “do we have something perfect, to translate from”??

If you(or anyone else), says.....”no” to this question.
Than you are flatly denying that God has preserved His Word!

Simply saying.......
“Nobody denies that God has preserved the Bible”
doesn’t make it so.

There are plenty of people on the BB, that openly deny preservation all together.
And I congratulate them, for their honesty!

And to clarify my earlier statement.

Yes, “translation” is a “work of man”: But the end result isn’t!
If the translators, were translating from “time tested manuscripts”.
-----------------------------------------------
One more thing; Your statement.........

“the KJV translators didn't use a singular text for their work showing that they didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed.”

For all intents and purposes, the TR, is a “singular text”!
And stating that other people “didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed”, might make you feel better in your unbelief, but your are still stuck, with your lack of faith.

We are 400 years removed; How in the world can we know what they “believed”!
Anyway, my faith isn’t based upon the faith of others.

 

[stilllearning]

By the way, that same website that you give so much credence to condemns the LXX which you hold to as a support for your theory of one version onlyism.

Here is what I "actually" said, about that site..........

"Who knows how much of this is absolutely true(it may all be true), but why take a chance!

I will stick with the Bible that has been under attack for 400 years, and is still here."

So didn't give it all that much "credence"!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is what I "actually" said, about that site..........


So didn't give it all that much "credence"!

So even though it tells one, what you would consider a lie, you still think we should 'not take a chance' and trust what it says about the NKJV?

The litmus test is easy.

Find one instance where the NKJV chooses a critical text rendering over a 'TR' rendering. That would be proof that the NKJV it less accurate to those texts than the Geneva translation that you admit you might very well accept.

 

[jbh28]

Hi jbh28

I have no trouble being honest.

No, the KJB, isn’t “perfectly translated”.

Ok, good for you.

The “issue” isn’t which translation is perfect, but “do we have something perfect, to translate from”??

If you(or anyone else), says.....”no” to this question.
Than you are flatly denying that God has preserved His Word!

No I haven't. The KJV trasnaltors didn't have anything perfect to translate from. They used multiple texts. The TR that matches up with the KJV was actually put together AFTER the KJV.

Yes, “translation” is a “work of man”: But the end result isn’t!

When do you think the end resut is? It's the work of man.

For all intents and purposes, the TR, is a “singular text”!
And stating that other people “didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed”, might make you feel better in your unbelief, but your are still stuck, with your lack of faith.

It has nothing to do with a lack of faith on my part and I wish you would stop saying things as this. The TR is a combination of other texts and there have been multiple TR's. The KJV didn't come from one text.

We are 400 years removed; How in the world can we know what they “believed”!
Anyway, my faith isn’t based upon the faith of others.

sure it is because the faith of the Bible says nothing about there being a singular perfect Greek text.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I have no trouble being honest.

Good; then

... thank you very much for this challenge!

what happened to your answer?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The problem with honesty, I am referring to is the fact that this writer(Ken Camp), painted all KJVO people as those nuts who believe in double inspiration. ...

I read the article over a couple of times and I cannot agree with your OP that Mr. Camp is a dishonest reporter.

The closest he seems to come to 'double inspiration' (those words don't actually appear anywhere in the article) is by quoting another person's somewhat subdued but otherwise accurate description of Ruckman as being "extreme" and his views as being "idiosyncratic" --

Peter Ruckman, founder of Pensacola Bible Institute, became one of the movement’s most strident and extreme advocates over the last 40 years, Straub explained.

“Many of his views are idiosyncratic with regard to the general teachings of most KJV proponents. For example, Ruckman believes the (King James) 1611 sometimes is superior to any Greek text,” he said. “That is, when there is a discrepancy between the KJV and the manuscripts, … then the KJV should be considered authoritative.”​

So, it should be plain to see here that Ken Camp is not guilty of broad-brushing all KJVO folks as 'nuts' that hold those peculiar and outlandish views of Ruckman.

On what basis do you accuse Camp of dishonesty? Please produce a quotation from the article to support your accusation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... One more thing;
The article repeated a charge, that I have read here many times; “That KJVO people have no Scripture to support their position.” ...

I cannot find in the Camp article any such charge. Please reproduce the statement from the article that would substatiate your accusation. Thanks.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... but also hold that the MT is still a good valid Greek text, and that it would be nice to have a modern version based upon it! ...

There are a couple; I can only recommend the one I have read which the ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament).

 

[BobinKy]

stilllearning...

Thanks for using the term KJB.

...Bob

 

[stilllearning]

stilllearning...

Thanks for using the term KJB.

...Bob

Hello again Bob

We can both thank "winman" for the term "KJB"!
I like it too.