Answer to your questions....

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

I have tried my very best to answer all of your questions that you had asked of me in the thread "Why not admitt you have no inspired Bible?". I will answer each question on a separate post, as my answers are lengthy.

1.) Where was God's inspired word during 100 A.D. through to 1611?

With the saints. God's people in the churches, where it was memorized, lived, taught, preached, and kept: in the minds and hearts of believers and also through their writings. These writings would have been loved and held sacred/precious, and kept in every perfect way to keep for the following generations. Some copies would have become torn, or worn out, and those christians who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and who love the Lord and his word would have preserved their writings for future generations. When your Bible has worn, torn or faded pages, do you not ensure that you replace it? Why? And why would it be any different for our ancient brothers and sisters in the Lord? If the word of God is important to a believer, these things are most definately assured.

We can also conclude, that if one is a truly born again child of God, their desire also would be to evangelize. One of those things included in this, would be dealing with people of other tongues/languages. One would first learn the language and then translate the very words of God into that language as accurately as possible. These also, in turn, would be memorized, taught, believed, lived, written down and held in the highest regard and loved so as to preserve them for the following generations in that tongue. This process continued. Did they have the whole Bible, as we have today? I can only say, that by faith I believe this to be absolutely yes! Can it be proven with facts? No. Those copies would have worn out, and not be available to us now. It is too far back in history to be able to determine this factually. All we know, is what we have in our hands today, and maybe some manuscripts, etc. that have survived outside of those things used for the compilation of the KJV. Do these things exist today? Absolutely Yes! Indeed they do, right in our translation of the KJV. I do not limit this to only English. I am sure there are other Bibles in other languages that indeed have the same underlying texts as the KJV.

to continue question #2 in the next post.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[ April 03, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

2.) When was the KJV inspired and by who?

You are asking a question that cannot be answered by anyone but God himself. The evidence we hold in our hands proves that God has kept his promises of preservation of his word. We are also given the understanding that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. God has said this, and he means it, and I believe it. If therefore, our very life depends upon every word of God, you can be sure (if you believe God and trust him) that he indeed has done this for every generation. We also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Do I believe God inspired the translators of the KJV? Yes, I do. I believe that in God's providence, authority, and power, that he would, could, and did, by evidence and faith in his promises, in 1611 for the english speaking people. Can I prove it? The proof I have is the Bible I hold in my hands, and the new life in Christ Jesus I have recieved, and continue to grow in because of it. And not just me, but many others, and not just in this day, but previous generations. The KJV has brought many revivals, and changed many peoples lives, as evidenced in history.

Did the KJV translators admitt or claim they were inspired by God to translate? Absolutely not. Is it possible that God could inspire something or someone without their knowledge of it? Absolutely yes! We can see that John the baptist did not think of himself as the prophet Elijah, when he was questioned that by the religious authorities of his day. However, we do see that Jesus Christ acknowledges to others, that John the baptist, was indeed the prophet Elijah spoken of in the scriptures.

Do I believe, or is there evidence of the modern day translators being inspired of God? Sadly, I have to say no. There are many reasons why I say this. First of all, the texts that underline the modern versions (mostly the ones debated on here) use questionable manuscripts as the more accurate and reliable manuscripts. These manuscripts were stagnant for many years in the Roman Catholic Church and coming from Alexandria. These manuscripts are relied upon as more accurate than the received text, or textus receptus, because they are "older". This is flawed thinking and in error. Just because something is dated older, does not in and of itself prove its' accuracy. In fact, the omissions that have been done to the modern versions, have used these manuscripts as proof that it should be questionable, whether this is God's word, and based solely on the premise that older is more accurate. So then, the problem comes with, not only taking away what God has said and preserved, but to give doubt to the reader, of what God actually did say. You accused the KJV tranlators and others of adding to what was already God's word s to embelish it. I do not see this, because, again remember, I am a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will always give God the glory, and the highest exhaltation. Is this of and by our own selves? Absolutely not. This comes by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who testifies to us, and gives to us to glorify the Son of God, and our Heavenly Father. This is to be expected from those born of God. To say or imply that this is done by human effort, is denying the work of the Holy Spirit in us, and testimony of him to us all who believe. To take those things out, and making one question if it was inspired and true, is denying this wonderful truth, and putting a stumblingblock before others.

The second reason is that since the time or inception of the modern versions, based upon these manuscripts (first being the REV - but really noticeable with the NIV in the 70's) is we have seen an increase in apostacy to an astounding level, and in fact more ecumenical ties with the Roman Catholic Church. This is not surprising, since Westcott and Hort's own beliefs were similiar or apologetic to the sacraments and beliefs of Rome. And then we must ask, what was the motivation behind the modern versions? Westcott and Hort believed that they needed a more accurate translation, and a translation less orthadox. It is continually said that the translators of the KJV were anglicans, used as an attack against their reputation and trustworthiness. However, it is also true that Westcott and Hort were also Anglican professors of Cambridge University. They treated the texts while translating, no different than any other book. Where was their fear of God and reverence for his pure word and truth? They did not believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament through the believers, as did the translators of the KJV. This shows me, these men were probably not born again believers. Westcott and Horts' methods relied only upon the intellect, and not at all on the divine truths that are understood by all those who believe. The REV actually makes statements in the preface to the affect that the King James Version has GRAVE defects and that there are so many and so serious, that this is what called for a new translation. This not only denies the truth that God had preserved his words through the saints, but puts more reliance upon those manuscripts that omitts much of it, and calling the actual preserved words errors. And this was said and done, using the intellect, and approaching God's holy and pure words with an attitude of disrespect. Disrespect, in the fact that it was critisized just like one would with another book. No spiritual discernment, or reverence for God's holy and pure word. They also most certainly did not have the same motivation for a revised Bible, as the KJV translators had.

Next post will answer question #3.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

3.) How is the KJV translation/translators any different or more qualified than the translation/translators of the modern versions?

I first would like to say, that I think it can be very dangerous to make a decision or belief on something SOLELY based upon the beliefs of a person. I do however acknowledge that one's beliefs can affect a translation based upon their own bias. That being said, it is also important that one use great spiritual discernment concerning a translation of God's pure word, and the texts to be used and the methods being used.

My husband and I were talking about this one night, and he made a very good point, one I already knew in my heart. He confirmed in words (and he is an ubeliever- unbiased in this), that the translators of 1611 compared to the modern scholars of today, had a greater advantage, and more likelihood in accuracy concerning languages. They were closer in time, and especially at this great time of the Renasiance, to understanding, and full working knowledge of the languages. We are speaking of men, who would have been expected to and unquestionably been well learned in this area of languages. Much moreso than those of today, or even in Westcott and Hort's day. They were closer in era to those languages, and texts of languages, and understanding of the culture of those languages. These were also God fearing men, who had no personal agendas, other than to give God's word to the common people, as it was requested of them. The people wanted a Bible without the influence of Rome. Why did they include the apocrypha? I don't know. The only thing that makes sense, is that old habits and beliefs are hard to break, and possibly those things in the apocrypha (even though it was NEVER included nor implied as God's inspired word of truth) were still looked upon as good for a referrence of commentary. The FACT IS, however, that it was soon REJECTED, and TAKEN OUT, by a later generation who had been removed enouph from the traditions of Rome, that this book would have been looked upon as heresy - hence we see that it indeed was removed.

Next post will answer question #4.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Thank you for answering honestly and concisely. In fact, I do believe in a lot of what you are saying, but differ on some points, but I will allow you to finish.

I do say that I agree with you that you DO have the Holy Word of God in your hands with your KJV. This is not about MV versus KJV. It is "are the MVs the Word of God, too." I have never intended to belittle the KJV.

I know you are a true Christian by your testimony and there are no doubts in that respect.

I just thought I might point out at least one or two areas in which we agree, because I do not want another Christian to think I am arguing against their Christianity.

Please continue, I have been known to change my mind in the past -- if you don't believe me, ask Helen......

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by michelle:
You are asking a question that cannot be answered by anyone but God himself.

Which is great, but then you write a page answering the question.

The evidence we hold in our hands proves that God has kept his promises of preservation of his word.

Just as the NIV in my hand does as well.

We are also given the understanding that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. God has said this, and he means it, and I believe it. If therefore, our very life depends upon every word of God, you can be sure (if you believe God and trust him) that he indeed has done this for every generation. We also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Just as those in the 600's had the Vulgate, and those in the 1700's had the KJV, I have the NIV, which also is testified by the Spirit as being the Word of God.

Do I believe God inspired the translators of the KJV? Yes, I do. I believe that in God's providence, authority, and power, that he would, could, and did, by evidence and faith in his promises, in 1611 for the english speaking people. Can I prove it? The proof I have is the Bible I hold in my hands, and the new life in Christ Jesus I have recieved, and continue to grow in because of it. And not just me, but many others, and not just in this day, but previous generations. The KJV has brought many revivals, and changed many peoples lives, as evidenced in history.

All of these great things have also been seen with other translations. The KJV is not the only translation which people have used to accept Christ, grow in Christ, and bring revival. Nothing here is specific to the KJV, but has been seen through a myriad of other translations.

Do I believe, or is there evidence of the modern day translators being inspired of God? Sadly, I have to say no. There are many reasons why I say this. First of all, the texts that underline the modern versions (mostly the ones debated on here) use questionable manuscripts as the more accurate and reliable manuscripts.

And there are those who, as you admit, disagree with your statement. The struggle is deciding which manuscripts most accurately reflect the originals. Just as Erasmus and others who developed Textus Recepti, modern scholars work very hard to determine which ones are original and which ones are not. We have the benefit of having many manuscripts that were unavailable to those in the 14th and 15th century.

These manuscripts were stagnant for many years in the Roman Catholic Church and coming from Alexandria.

So? This doesn't make them necessarily evil.

These manuscripts are relied upon as more accurate than the received text, or textus receptus, because they are "older". This is flawed thinking and in error. Just because something is dated older, does not in and of itself prove its' accuracy.

Flawed analysis. There are many other reasons why these are chosen, only one of which is age. Please do some research in this area before making claims such as this.

In fact, the omissions that have been done to the modern versions, have used these manuscripts as proof that it should be questionable, whether this is God's word, and based solely on the premise that older is more accurate.

Incorrect again. Where did you get this information?

So then, the problem comes with, not only taking away what God has said and preserved, but to give doubt to the reader, of what God actually did say. You accused the KJV tranlators and others of adding to what was already God's word s to embelish it. I do not see this, because, again remember, I am a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and we will always give God the glory, and the highest exhaltation. Is this of and by our own selves? Absolutely not. This comes by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who testifies to us, and gives to us to glorify the Son of God, and our Heavenly Father. This is to be expected from those born of God. To say or imply that this is done by human effort, is denying the work of the Holy Spirit in us, and testimony of him to us all who believe. To take those things out, and making one question if it was inspired and true, is denying this wonderful truth, and putting a stumblingblock before others.

Adding things is just as wrong as taking things out. There are many, many Spirit-filled believers in Christ who would believe (as I would) that there are several passages in KJV which were added. I don't think the KJV translators added as much as others earlier down the line, who added things to the manuscripts to clarify things.

The second reason is that since the time or inception of the modern versions, based upon these manuscripts (first being the REV - but really noticeable with the NIV in the 70's) is we have seen an increase in apostacy to an astounding level, and in fact more ecumenical ties with the Roman Catholic Church.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. One could easily say that the change happened because of Charlie's Angels, which also appeared in the 70's. Apostacy has been around for 1900 years, and it's nothing new. We must also notice that there are more Christians on this earth now than in the history of the world. Can we also say that because of the NIV, this is true?

This is not surprising, since Westcott and Hort's own beliefs were similiar or apologetic to the sacraments and beliefs of Rome.

Where did you get this? Guess what? It's not true. Read their own writings and their individual biographies to see that your statement is false. Don't take anything that you read at face value, but research to see what the Truth is. Believe it or not, but people will stretch and mangle the truth for their side to be seen as correct - this is what is happening to Westcott and Hort at the hands of KJVO's. It's wrong to do it originally, and it is wrong to continue passing it as fact.

No spiritual discernment, or reverence for God's holy and pure word.

Perhaps those who do realize that other versions are just as valid as the KJV are the ones really practicing spiritual discernment, as well as reverence for God's holy and pure word.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

4.) Who was inspired and by who: The translators of 1611 or the revisionists who made corrections on numerous later dates?

The problem with your question, is that you have made a presumption that the translation was changed to affect doctrine and context. The revisions/editions that took place were done to correct printing errors and spelling changes due to the English language being perfected at that time. It is important to remember and acknowledge, that printing methods back then were very tedious and time consuming, as opposed to today. It was very easy to make mistakes in this process. Have you ever been to Williamsburg, Va. and toured through the printers shop? You can see how very tedious this work is. This is not the same today - printing has greatly improved.

As far as the inspiration goes, I explained my thoughts on this is a previous answer. The corrections made to the spelling errors and printing errors were corrected, and I believe that God in his providence saw to this that it was done. Did these people realize it? No. Can we now see that God had insured this? Yes, by the evidence that it was done. It is also important to understand, that God's word was viewed as sacred and important, to those who love him and are his children. They would have seen fit to correct the errors, which we see they did.

You asked me to provide you with Biblical proof from the scriptures. The proof I have is what I hold in my hands, from cover to cover and to which saved me, and guides me and teaches me daily. It is also the evidence in history as I have answered in a previous question. It is also that of faith in God's promises to preserve his word from generation to generation, and forever. It is also testimony of the Holy Spirit to my spirit. It is also that God is not the author of confusion. Do you honestly think that God would desire and make it that one would doubt if he has actually said something? Do you not trust that God could and did preserve his word, from generation to generation without any doubts? We see indicated in many places in the scriptures: "It is written". This is evidence also, that God's written word of truth is and should be very important to the believer. God's word of truth is part of our armour against the wiles of the devil, and in staying in the will of God in our every day lives. If this armour is weak, or has holes, we might be putting ourselves in a position to be defeated by the enemy. What about those young new soldiers? Is is better for them to have the strongest armour, especially in a time of ever increasing army of the enemy? Or is it better to equip them with weak armour that has holes to leave that young new soldier in doubt, fear, and confusion when they face the enemy and his army?

I know you will probably disregard this answer because I didn't give you an absolute scripture referrence for my belief. But we are told to test all things, prove that which is true. I have done this. Have you?

To be quite honest and frank with you, no one will find anywhere in scripture anything pertaining to translations. We are to live by faith and not by sight. My faith and trust is in God and what he has promised concerning his pure words of truth. The evidence of what God has promised is available to all those who know God and have a daily personal relationship with him. When we hear or read something that is not of or by him, we know to reject it, because we only listen and follow the voice of our dearly beloved Shepard - Jesus Christ our Lord.

Next post will answer question #5.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

5.) If one was to translate a new and accurate Spanish Bible, how would I go about it?

a.) translate the KJV?
b.) translate from old texts?
c.) which texts?

First, I would gather or conclude that God has already given the Spanish speaking people his preserved word in their own language. I believe this by faith, and by the perserverence of the saints of God in the past. I do not know what Bibles are available in the Spanish language, but one who is spanish would know the history of their own Bible versions, just as we do here. In order for them to determine which Bible should be translated into a newer version of that language, the best thing for them to do, is to use the recieved text, or textus receptus version. I would also have to then question, is a new translation really necessary? Can I understand what God is telling me in this version? Am I really saved? Do I have a desire and discipline to learn God's word? Am I leaning upon prayer and obediance and humbleness toward God as I approach his word? Do I acknowledge to those sins and wrong doings and attitude about myself as the Holy Spirit convicts my heart as I read? Or am I running from that conviction under the excuse that I can't understand it? Or, I don't have the time, or great desire to dedicate myself in learning of God and what he desires to show me, so I need something to make it easier? It sounds to me, like the Israelites in the wilderness, who did not want, and could not handle hearing God's voice speak to them, to request that Moses speak for God to them instead.

They have their own preserved word of God in their own language. If they wanted to translate a new and updated Bible to their own language of the day, then they would do well to rely upon the received text, the same as are the compilation of manuscripts of believers in the past, long understood and known in the past, and to whom preserved God's word for the following generations. If those texts no longer exist, they might do well to stay with the origional Bible they already have been given which rely upon these texts, and rely upon God and dictionaries, and a desire to learn about and grow in their faith and relationship with Jesus Christ the Lord.

Next post will answer question #6.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

6.) Please explain the fact that 13 different manuscripts were used by the KJV translators to come up with the Revelation of Jesus Christ? What is different about the way the translators formed a committee to use textual critism (much like today - only more archaic) to determine which parts of which manuscripts they chose from to use?


I think I explained this in a previous question, but I will try to answer it again. Textual critism methods of the modern translators are flawed, in that they approach the texts as one would any other book. The reliance and determining factor weighs upon the intellect and shcolarly approach rather than trusting more heavily in the preservation and pureness of God's holy word. The Holy Spirit, and spiritual discernment is not at all considered by the modern critics. This cannot be said of the translators of the KJV, even though these translators of the KJV were much more scholarly, educated, and knowledgable in this proffession. For example, in Rev. 1:11 removing/omitting "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" from the verse, weakens the deity of Jesus Christ and his Godhead. Why would anyone who is born again child of God question this, and consider this to be inaccurate and in error, just because the majority of the texts they have coalated omitt this? It is because they have approached translation of God's pure word with the intellect, rather than reverence, and because they falsely believe that older manuscripts are more accurate. So therefore the omission must be correct. One cannot approach God's holy and pure word of truth in this manner - faithlessness and using man's wisdom, over that of faith in God. I say these men had very little faith, if any at all, based upon the way they appraoched God's word with the wisdom of the world and wisdom of a scholar, rather than wisdom of God - which is the fear of God. Where is their fear of God and faith in his preserving his word of truth evidenced in their beliefs, actions, methods? You can't find it, because it is not there. When one is faced with the question of the deity of Christ vs. omitting this because most of the manuscripts omitted this, should cause concern to those who are born again in the Lord, because we know and express the exhaltation of God, and Jesus Christ as Lord, to be of God and expected in his word of truth. Not omitted to weaken the truth, and cause many to not see the profound truth of this reality.

I have done my best to answer all of your questions. May the Lord bring you blessings of peace and understanding.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

One cannot approach God's holy and pure word of truth in this manner - faithlessness and using man's wisdom, over that of faith in God. I say these men had very little faith, if any at all, based upon the way they appraoched God's word with the wisdom of the world and wisdom of a scholar, rather than wisdom of God - which is the fear of God.

And by your words, you condemn the KJV translators. They looked at the existing Bibles and MSS through those same "scholarly" eyes and picked and choose what to put in and what to leave out.

Where is their fear of God and faith in his preserving his word of truth evidenced in their beliefs, actions, methods? You can't find it, because it is not there. When one is faced with the question of the deity of Christ vs. omitting this because most of the manuscripts omitted this,

This accusation has been refuted as patently false. The MSS are full of direct statement of Christ's diety and so are the MV's translated from them.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

So is it true or false, that this verse was omitted? What was the reason for omitting this? Does omitting this weaken a persons ability to referrence the deity of Christ? God has repeated himself, and his words throughout his word for us, so that we can be absolutely sure, not only for ourselves, but when we are witnessing to others.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

5.) If one was to translate a new and accurate Spanish Bible, how would I go about it?

a.) translate the KJV?
b.) translate from old texts?
c.) which texts?

First, I would gather or conclude that God has already given the Spanish speaking people his preserved word in their own language. I believe this by faith, and by the perserverence of the saints of God in the past. I do not know what Bibles are available in the Spanish language, but one who is spanish would know the history of their own Bible versions, just as we do here. In order for them to determine which Bible should be translated into a newer version of that language, the best thing for them to do, is to use the recieved text, or textus receptus version. I would also have to then question, is a new translation really necessary? Can I understand what God is telling me in this version? Am I really saved? Do I have a desire and discipline to learn God's word? Am I leaning upon prayer and obediance and humbleness toward God as I approach his word? Do I acknowledge to those sins and wrong doings and attitude about myself as the Holy Spirit convicts my heart as I read? Or am I running from that conviction under the excuse that I can't understand it? Or, I don't have the time, or great desire to dedicate myself in learning of God and what he desires to show me, so I need something to make it easier? It sounds to me, like the Israelites in the wilderness, who did not want, and could not handle hearing God's voice speak to them, to request that Moses speak for God to them instead.

They have their own preserved word of God in their own language. If they wanted to translate a new and updated Bible to their own language of the day, then they would do well to rely upon the received text, the same as are the compilation of manuscripts of believers in the past, long understood and known in the past, and to whom preserved God's word for the following generations. If those texts no longer exist, they might do well to stay with the origional Bible they already have been given which rely upon these texts, and rely upon God and dictionaries, and a desire to learn about and grow in their faith and relationship with Jesus Christ the Lord.

Next post will answer question #6.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Let me interrupt just a minute Michelle. I am trying to allow you to give full answers before I respond so that we are fair here. Let me correct this question and you may want to reanswer it or revise your answer. I used Spanish only as a reference. It is well known that the Southern Baptist Convention (among other missionary groups) are translating Bibles into languages for a new and "unreached people group" who have never had a Bible in their language or dialect, every single year My point is and was; how would you go about translating one to someone who does NOT have a Bible in their language? Do you translate the KJV? Do you translate using the Textus Receptus? If you do use the Textus Receptus and then were to translate back to English you would find that "although the books say the same thing" the wording would be DIFFERENT.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

You said that if you translated using the textus receptus to tranlsate to the Spanish language, that if that were then translated into English the wording would be different. First I have to ask, if the intention is to translate from the textus receptus a Bible for Spanish speaking/ reading people, why then would you translate that into english? What would be the purpose of that? And yes, it makes sense that it might have different wording being done that way. What is your point?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

You said that if you translated using the textus receptus to tranlsate to the Spanish language, that if that were then translated into English the wording would be different. First I have to ask, if the intention is to translate from the textus receptus a Bible for Spanish speaking/ reading people, why then would you translate that into english? What would be the purpose of that? And yes, it makes sense that it might have different wording being done that way. What is your point?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

My point is this: I realize that it would be redundant and probably fairly ridiculous to translate it to English; BUT, what I am trying to say is that even though it WOULD have different wording, it would SAY the same thing.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Phillip,

I do not have a problem with different wording, as long as the word accurately fits the context. We are speaking of a language that is not english, but spanish (for purpose of this discussion)from the textus receptus. I know that languages can be different, and have different english meanings, etc. I learned the basics of Bahasa Indonesia when I lived there, and to translate a Bible in that language would entail quite a bit. For instance, they state the adjective of the noun or verb after, rather than before, which in some cases can be quite confusing. Would I find this not accurate? Absolutely not, for that is how they speak.

I think you are assuming that I am one that believes in every single word in the KJV "as it is" in the KJV is the only inspired word for the english language. I do not believe this. I believe that if the word that is changed, accurately fits the context of the passage, then that is okay. It is when it changes it, that I disagree, and reject it.

I hope you understand.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

So is it true or false, that this verse was omitted? What was the reason for omitting this? Does omitting this weaken a persons ability to referrence the deity of Christ? God has repeated himself, and his words throughout his word for us, so that we can be absolutely sure, not only for ourselves, but when we are witnessing to others.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

There is simply a variation here in the manuscripts and it does not weaken the deity of Christ - which is clearly attested to in many other places. Do you have absolute proof that it was "deleted" instead of "added" at some point in time?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

TC,


--------------------------------------------------
Michelle quoted:

For example, in Rev. 1:11 removing/omitting "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" from the verse, weakens the deity of Jesus Christ and his Godhead. Why would anyone who is born again child of God question this, and consider this to be inaccurate and in error, just because the majority of the texts they have coalated omitt this? It is because they have approached translation of God's pure word with the intellect, rather than reverence, and because they falsely believe that older manuscripts are more accurate. So therefore the omission must be correct. One cannot approach God's holy and pure word of truth in this manner - faithlessness and using man's wisdom, over that of faith in God. I say these men had very little faith, if any at all, based upon the way they appraoched God's word with the wisdom of the world and wisdom of a scholar, rather than wisdom of God - which is the fear of God. Where is their fear of God and faith in his preserving his word of truth evidenced in their beliefs, actions, methods? You can't find it, because it is not there. When one is faced with the question of the deity of Christ vs. omitting this because most of the manuscripts omitted this, should cause concern to those who are born
--------------------------------------------------


This is what I was asking you about in referrence to you comment:

--------------------------------------------------
This accusation has been refuted as patently false. The MSS are full of direct statement of Christ's diety and so are the MV's translated from them
--------------------------------------------------


Now I ask you again:

So is it true or false, that this verse was omitted? What was the reason for omitting this? Does omitting this weaken a persons ability to referrence the deity of Christ? God has repeated himself, and his words throughout his word for us, so that we can be absolutely sure, not only for ourselves, but when we are witnessing to others.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Michelle,

Please see edited post (I did it right after I posted it and you might not have seen it).

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


TC,


--------------------------------------------------
There is simply a variation here in the manuscripts and it does not weaken the deity of Christ - which is clearly attested to in many other places. Do you have absolute proof that it was "deleted" instead of "added" at some point in time
--------------------------------------------------

Yes I do, by the fact it is in the KJV. Secondly by the Holy Spirit of truth. Thirdly, because this
description is informing the reader of who is speaking and the words are specific to who it is that is speaking to John. Fourth because it refers the reader back to this verse from Revelation 22:13 that this same speaker is the same as who came to John. Fifthly, because it denotes his deity and the fact that Jesus Christ is the beginning and ending, and the first and the last. This is part of His quotation to John himself, and quaulifies this as the actual words of Jesus. It is also seen in verse 8. There is no reason to suspect that it would not have also been in verse 11. It is giving the reader assurance of who exactly is speaking with John, that he is God Almighty, and that he is also Jesus Christ our Lord. In verse 17 it is also speaking of the first and the last, which refers the reader to all above mentioned references to the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that is indeed he who is speaking to John. To take it out of verse 11 weakens this truth.

So now I ask you again, by what reason did they have to omitt this?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Yes I do, by the fact it is in the KJV.

In other words, if it aint the KJV it's wrong. The phrase is not in the majority of the Greek MSS, so most Bibles don't have it in - whick is not an omission.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes I do, by the fact it is in the KJV.

But as we have pointed out many times, you cannot prove that the KJV is the exact copy of the originals. You cannot simply assume that the KJV is right. That is an assumption without merit.

What if I say that the Holy Spirit has testified to many of us that that phrase was indeed added. On what basis will you disagree?? You can't prove anything in respect to that because the truth is that the Holy Spirit has not given you inside information on it.

The reason it was left out of modern Greek texts is because the evidence God preserved for us indicates that it should not be there.

This is a prime example of a text that some reach after to prove some grand conspiracy. Christ is described in 1:17 and 2:8 in almost identical phrases. What kind of inept conspirators do you think were involved in this?? The testimony about Jesus Christ is clear, whether or not 1:11 says anything at all. We need to keep that clear.