A very silly KJVO argument...

[annsni]

Admitting that there were "expansions of piety" in ANY NT text sounds the death knell of the "only" bunch. That there are obviously hundreds of such over the copies of copies of copies of their corrupted source documents CANNOT be admitted.

Slippery slope. So don't expect them to agree.

Yep - yet putting "God" in place of "Him" is OK. It's just clarifying who we are speaking of. But it makes the language awkward if we say "God is good. God loves me." instead of saying "God is good. He loves me." Both say the same thing - both are accurate. One is grammatically a bit easier to read, though.

 

[Trotter]

You are trusting only certain fallable men. You are deciding that you are the expert and know which one is the right fallable men and have decided that since 1611, there is not one man who God has used to translate His Word into modern English. I, however, feel that God is STILL using men to continue to be sure that His Word is translated as accurately as possible. I guess that's where we differ.

Actually, Ann, we choose the worship the Author of the book instead of the book itself which is a major difference.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Emphasis mine.

Taking as assumption and then acting upon it as if it were fact is poor scholarship to say the least.

In textual criticism giving reasons why something could have happened is part of the game. If there are no relevant reasons why a scribe or editor might possibly have wanted to remove "without a cause," then the argument for the verse without the Greek word εἰκῇ is stronger. If there are good reasons why a scribe or editor would have wanted to omit the word, then the case for retaining the word is greater. It is not saying that such and such must have happened, but that such and such very well might and probably could have happened.

Hey, I was merely pointing to an academic journal that thought someone's article defending the word was good enough to publish. I read the article and merely posted some relevant sections for your own benefit. You might actually want to read the article for yourself before trashing it. But I admit that is probably too much to ask.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Trotter]

But I admit that is probably too much to ask.

Actually it's not. Do you have a link? I would like to read it.

I wasn't intending to trash the article. The leap of logic seemed obvious to me given the quote. I have made the same mistake many times so I am well aware of it.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Actually it's not. Do you have a link? I would like to read it.

I wasn't intending to trash the article. The leap of logic seemed obvious to me given the quote. I have made the same mistake many times so I am well aware of it.

All colleges with a divinity school and most Bible colleges subscribe to Novum Testamentum. As far as I know you cannot view articles from the web for free. It might take more effort than click click click.

 

[Winman]

Well, you see, you just lied. You said it was omitted yet you say it's in the footnotes. So it was not omitted at all - just moved to show that there is some question to the heritage of the verse. But don't you think if they wished to remove a doctrine, they would have done a MUCH better job of it? Wouldn't they have taken out Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:12, Acts 19:5 etc. and maybe even added something showing ONE example of a babies' baptism? Oh - and I personally have the Children's NIV and the note is in there - I just saw it.

Wow, you outright called me a liar. Nice. Then you say I admitted the omitted verse is shown in the footnotes. How that could be lying eludes me.

You keep arguing that the footnotes carry the weight of scripture. I can tell you from personal experience when I was young and had a copy of the RSV that the footnotes caused me confusion and doubt. When I saw a footnote that said things like "better manuscripts omit vs. 37" that caused me to think that verse 37 really shouldn't be there. It caused me to think it was a verse added by men and not the word of God.

And not all people read footnotes. I used to own a Scofield KJV and rarely read the footnotes. I considered the footnotes to be opinions of men, and not necessarily true or faithful to the scriptures. For example, if I remember correctly, Scofield added a footnote between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that supported the Gap Theory which I do not believe in the least. I haven't owned a Scofield in many years, so I am relying on my memory here.

You may accuse me of contradicting myself, as I first said I read the footnotes, and then said I didn't. Well, that was because footnotes caused me lots of confusion, and I found them very frustrating. After awhile I quit reading them. At present I own three KJVs and two of them have no footnotes or even verse references whatsoever. I prefer to just read the scriptures now and not be troubled by the added thoughts and opinions of men.

But to argue that the footnotes carry the weight of scripture is very unrealistic.

 

[Mexdeaf]

You may accuse me of contradicting myself, as I first said I read the footnotes, and then said I didn't. Well, that was because footnotes caused me lots of confusion, and I found them very frustrating. After awhile I quit reading them. At present I own three KJVs and two of them have no footnotes or even verse references whatsoever. I prefer to just read the scriptures now and not be troubled by the added thoughts and opinions of men.

But to argue that the footnotes carry the weight of scripture is very unrealistic.

Then the problem isn't the footnotes- the problem is you.

And in some way, shape or form a translation ALWAYS reflects the "thoughts and opinions of men"- including the KJV in all of it's various incarnations.

So, stick with the KJV, no problem. And don't tell us WE are confused just because we don't have a problem understanding the purpose of footnotes.

 

[Winman]

Then the problem isn't the footnotes- the problem is you.

And in some way, shape or form a translation ALWAYS reflects the "thoughts and opinions of men"- including the KJV in all of it's various incarnations.

So, stick with the KJV, no problem. And don't tell us WE are confused just because we don't have a problem understanding the purpose of footnotes.

So, when a MV omits a verse as the NIV omits Acts 8:37 and then in the footnote says,

(8:36)Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Now, tell me, should verse 37 be there or not?

 

[Trotter]

I can tell you from personal experience when I was young and had a copy of the RSV that the footnotes caused me confusion and doubt.

"when I was young"... "confusion and doubt". Those go together. I know when I was a young Christian the italicized text in the KJV confused me as I didn't know why it was italicized. For a long while I thought that it meant the words were more important than the non-italicized words. Since no one came alongside me and explained this to me I was in doubt for a long while. If you had had someone with spiritual maturity come alongside you back then you would not have been confused as you were.

Footnotes are there for literary honesty. Many bibles don't have/use them and so they are misleading the readers by lying through the omission of footnotes to let the reader know that not all manuscripts agree.

So, when a MV omits a verse as the NIV omits Acts 8:37 and then in the footnote says,

(8:36)Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Now, tell me, should verse 37 be there or not?

Good question. The verse did not show up for several centuries and then it suddenly appeared. Do you think it was part of the original writing? I would highly doubt that it was myself. either way, the translation puts it in the footnotes so that the reader can see it and know the reason why it was put there instead of in the text.

Everyone I know would rather have a translation that is honest with the text than to be fed what the publisher decided upon. The KJV translators included their footnotes for the same reasons as the the MVs but publishers have removed them from most versions of the KJV.

 

[Mexdeaf]

So, when a MV omits a verse as the NIV omits Acts 8:37 and then in the footnote says,

(8:36)Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Now, tell me, should verse 37 be there or not?

The eunuch got saved whether verse 37 is there or not, didn't he?

 

[annsni]

Wow, you outright called me a liar. Nice. Then you say I admitted the omitted verse is shown in the footnotes. How that could be lying eludes me.

Well, I just looked "omit" up in the Mirriam Webster dictionary and it means "leave out or leave unmentioned". Since the NIV and other versions did not leave it out or leave it unmentioned, then saying that the verse is omitted is a lie.

You keep arguing that the footnotes carry the weight of scripture. I can tell you from personal experience when I was young and had a copy of the RSV that the footnotes caused me confusion and doubt. When I saw a footnote that said things like "better manuscripts omit vs. 37" that caused me to think that verse 37 really shouldn't be there. It caused me to think it was a verse added by men and not the word of God.

So we are going to base Biblical scholarship on a child? Not a good idea, I'd bet you'd agree.

And not all people read footnotes. I used to own a Scofield KJV and rarely read the footnotes. I considered the footnotes to be opinions of men, and not necessarily true or faithful to the scriptures. For example, if I remember correctly, Scofield added a footnote between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that supported the Gap Theory which I do not believe in the least. I haven't owned a Scofield in many years, so I am relying on my memory here.

There is a difference between a footnote with an author's ideas and a footnote with the textual information. Do you ignore the footnotes when it explains unknown measures and words?

You may accuse me of contradicting myself, as I first said I read the footnotes, and then said I didn't. Well, that was because footnotes caused me lots of confusion, and I found them very frustrating. After awhile I quit reading them. At present I own three KJVs and two of them have no footnotes or even verse references whatsoever. I prefer to just read the scriptures now and not be troubled by the added thoughts and opinions of men.

But to argue that the footnotes carry the weight of scripture is very unrealistic.

That is called "lazy study", I'm sorry to say. If you don't want to read the footnotes, that's your choice but you are missing what God is saying. And you saying that there are KJVs with no footnotes at all, I can see how much man's hand is in the KJV and makes me happy that I don't use it most of the time - but when I do, I use an old Oxford from my FIL and not a newfangled mess of an interpretation.

 

[jonathan.borland]

So, when a MV omits a verse as the NIV omits Acts 8:37 and then in the footnote says,

(8:36)Some late manuscripts baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Now, tell me, should verse 37 be there or not?

On text-critical grounds I do not think Acts 8:37 is original, but readily admit it was around in the 2nd century. I think it is absent from all Greek copies before the 10th century, including the earliest (p45) from around A.D. 200.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Rippon]

On text-critical grounds I do not think Acts 8:37 is original, but readily admit it was around in the 2nd century. I think it is absent from all Greek copies before the 10th century, including the earliest (p45) from around A.D. 200.

Jonathan C. Borland

It's an obvious filler. Some scribe added his own thoughts into Holy Writ.

 

[RAdam]

It's an obvious filler. Some scribe added his own thoughts into Holy Writ.

I know I shouldn't get into this, but how do you know that?

 

[Winman]

Well, I just looked "omit" up in the Mirriam Webster dictionary and it means "leave out or leave unmentioned". Since the NIV and other versions did not leave it out or leave it unmentioned, then saying that the verse is omitted is a lie.

Here is the link for the Blue Letter Bible online, the NIV Acts chapter 8. Go down till you get to verse 37 and tell me what it says.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=8&v=1&t=NIV#top

Maybe you want to e-mail them and call them a liar too?

Good question. The verse did not show up for several centuries and then it suddenly appeared. Do you think it was part of the original writing? I would highly doubt that it was myself. either way, the translation puts it in the footnotes so that the reader can see it and know the reason why it was put there instead of in the text.

Everyone I know would rather have a translation that is honest with the text than to be fed what the publisher decided upon. The KJV translators included their footnotes for the same reasons as the the MVs but publishers have removed them from most versions of the KJV.

Well, you didn't answer the question. I believe verse 37 to be the word of God and should absolutely be there. You can't have it both ways. Either verse 37 is the word of God and should be there, or else it was inserted by man and is not the word of God.

But here's the problem, I have seen several here say that the KJV and the MVs are basically the same thing, they just say the same thing in a different way. That is not true. They are very different. On another thread we are discussing Acts 13:20.

NIV- All this took about 450 years. "After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.
KJV- And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

If you read this verse in context in the two different versions you will easily see they are saying very different things. The NIV assigns the 450 years to the period from when the Jews entered Egypt at the time of Joseph until they entered the promised land and divided it by lot to the twelve tribes.

The KJV on the other hand clearly assigns this 450 years beginning after the land was divided by lots until the time of Samuel the judge.

So, one of these versions has to be wrong. They do not agree and and are not saying the same thing whatsoever. So, it is absolutely false to claim that both the KJV and MVs are inerrant. That is impossible. Remember, inerrant means to be without error.

 

[annsni]

Here is the link for the Blue Letter Bible online, the NIV Acts chapter 8. Go down till you get to verse 37 and tell me what it says.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=8&v=1&t=NIV#top

Maybe you want to e-mail them and call them a liar too?

Sure thing.

Well, you didn't answer the question. I believe verse 37 to be the word of God and should absolutely be there. You can't have it both ways. Either verse 37 is the word of God and should be there, or else it was inserted by man and is not the word of God.

Or maybe we say that there is questionable heritage to the verse and honestly notate that.

But here's the problem, I have seen several here say that the KJV and the MVs are basically the same thing, they just say the same thing in a different way. That is not true. They are very different. On another thread we are discussing Acts 13:20.

NIV- All this took about 450 years. "After this, God gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.
KJV- And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

If you read this verse in context in the two different versions you will easily see they are saying very different things. The NIV assigns the 450 years to the period from when the Jews entered Egypt at the time of Joseph until they entered the promised land and divided it by lot to the twelve tribes.

The KJV on the other hand clearly assigns this 450 years beginning after the land was divided by lots until the time of Samuel the judge.

So, one of these versions has to be wrong. They do not agree and and are not saying the same thing whatsoever. So, it is absolutely false to claim that both the KJV and MVs are inerrant. That is impossible. Remember, inerrant means to be without error.

See, I do not see those verses as reading differently when you understand grammar. They both say the same thing and that was the general conclusion of the other thread, in case you missed it.

 

[Winman]

That is called "lazy study", I'm sorry to say. If you don't want to read the footnotes, that's your choice but you are missing what God is saying. And you saying that there are KJVs with no footnotes at all, I can see how much man's hand is in the KJV and makes me happy that I don't use it most of the time - but when I do, I use an old Oxford from my FIL and not a newfangled mess of an interpretation.

You say the nicest things. :love2:

I do not consider the footnotes to be what God is saying, the footnotes are the opinions of man. Oh, occasionally I will find a difficult passage or verse and look at a few commentaries online to see what noted scholars say. And you know what? They often disagree and interpret the same verse or passage very differently. No, I believe the best way to interpret scripture is by scripture itself. So, I will look up as many verses as I can find on a given topic and usually this will answer any questions I have.

I had a great pastor years ago who I promise could leave anybody on this forum in the dust when it came to bible knowlege. He told me he never read commentaries, because he generally found commentators had the same difficulties he had explaining a verse or passage.

 

[Winman]

Or maybe we say that there is questionable heritage to the verse and honestly notate that.

Have you ever considered politics? You should.

See, I do not see those verses as reading differently when you understand grammar. They both say the same thing and that was the general conclusion of the other thread, in case you missed it.

Well, I do understand grammer and this verse as shown in the NIV and KJV is clearly saying two different things with absolutely different meanings. I do not know Jonathan Borland, but he seems to be quite the scholar and he agreed with me. Here is what he said:

No, the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts differ very distinctly. The Alexandrians say, according to modern translators, that there were about 450 years from the going to Egypt until the institution of the judges. The Byzantines say that there were judges for about 450 years.

Jonathan C. Borland

Going back to Acts 8:37, it is either the word of God or it isn't. If it is, then the KJV is correct and the MVs that omit it are in error. If Acts 8:37 is not the word of God but inserted my men, then the KJV is in error and cannot be called inerrant.

But you cannot say the KJV and MVs are the same. They are not. And if you would do even a little bit of study you would know they came from completely different manuscripts.

Look up Majority Text and Minority Text.

 

[Winman]

Ann, I am going to show you a verse from the KJV and NIV that I believe even you will admit give very different meanings. Galatians 5:12.

Here it is in the KJV.

Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Here Paul is speaking of persons who had entered the church and taught these new Christians that they needed to be circumcised to be saved. And Paul is saying he wished these false teachers were even cut off. Cut off is used many times in the scriptures and means to exclude, ostracize, or banish.

Lev 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Paul means that these persons should be put out of the church. Here is how Matthew Henry explains this verse:

but as for him or those that troubled them, whoever he or they were, he declares they should bear their judgment, he did not doubt but God would deal with them according to their deserts, and out of his just indignation against them, as enemies of Christ and his church, he wishes that they were even cut off—not cut off from Christ and all hopes of salvation by him, but cut off by the censures of the church, which ought to witness against those teachers who thus corrupted the purity of the gospel. Those, whether ministers or others, who set themselves to overthrow the faith of the gospel, and disturb the peace of Christians, do thereby forfeit the privileges of Christian communion and deserve to be cut off from them.

So Paul wishes these false teachers to be put out of the church.

But now look at this verse in the NIV

Gal 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Now, I believe even you would admit this verse in the NIV is saying something entirely different than the KJV. Because Paul had been speaking of circumcision, these translators thought Paul was wishing these false teachers would go just a little bit further with the knife and mutilate their bodies, removing a very important piece of plumbing.

Now, would you say the NIV gives a little different meaning to this verse than the KJV?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Gal 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Now, I believe even you would admit this verse in the NIV is saying something entirely different than the KJV. Because Paul had been speaking of circumcision, these translators thought Paul was wishing these false teachers would go just a little bit further with the knife and mutilate their bodies, removing a very important piece of plumbing.

Now, would you say the NIV gives a little different meaning to this verse than the KJV?

Well, blame Jesus. Read Mark 9 and see Jesus Himself use the exact same word (not an OT Hebrew reference) that is translated as "cut off" - as in chopped, maimed, lop off the offending hand like Moslem do still today to thieves.

Actually TWICE in the same chapter - the word means to CHOP OFF. Not to "stop fellowship".

So wonder where the NIV translators got the idea for using the word in exactly the same way when they came to Galatians?

Consistency.

"Cut off" used by Jesus = chop off, maim physically
"Cut off" used by Paul = chop off, maim physically

Bravo for consistency. And what a graphic picture God gave!