Many state the MV’s are corrupted/perverted and no one can be saved by reading corrupted/polluted versions.
-
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!
Apostates and Heretics behind the texts underlying modern translations
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
Well that person does not understand salvation then let alone bible translations.
I do believe modern versions are inferior translations especially the more dynamic ones like the NIV, and then the NASB and ESV are based on corrupted texts, however I believe the Gospel is found in them all (Romans 1:16)
They don’t. They are KJV or bust.
And I believe they are superior. The KJV imported a Latin word for ‘Lucifer’, and now ppl believe He was a pre-fallen Satan.
I believe the term used by them is "Satanically inspired"
Yes, if he really feels that way, he is actually Kjvp=Preferred
Lucifer is not Satan?And I believe they are superior. The KJV imported a Latin word for ‘Lucifer’, and now ppl believe He was a pre-fallen Satan.
Nope
who was Lucifer then?
King of Babylon.
Was God not using Him though as a type of satan?
Look, let's not derail the thread, as Lucifer is not the topic of the OP.
If you wish to debate this, start a thread and I will chime in.
Like D. A. Waite, David Cloud tries to advocate a contradictory position of being KJV-only and not-KJV-only at the same time. He tries to confuse believers concerning what actually constitutes KJV-only reasoning/teaching.
David Cloud's own stated KJV-only reasoning has not been demonstrated to be consistent, sound, and scriptural. He is not actually nearly as reasonable and balanced as he tries to suggest. While David Cloud has strongly condemned some of Ruckman's and Riplinger's KJV-only reasoning, he fails to see that some of his own KJV-only reasoning that involves use of fallacies would lead to the same conclusions that he condemns in their position.
David Cloud claims to be willing to accept an updating of the archaic language in the KJV, but he in actual practice he does not accept it. David Cloud has been unwilling to accept updated revisions of the KJV such as the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the New Scofield, the King James II, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, the King James 2000 Version, the King James Easy-Reading Bible, etc. His hypothetical claim to be willing to accept updating while in practice rejecting it is contradictory.
David Cloud does not apply his measures/standards consistently and justly or else he would have to condemn Erasmus and the Church of England makers of the KJV as heretics or apostates.
David Cloud wrote: "I do not believe the King James Bible contains any errors" (For Love of the Bible, p. 10).
If David Cloud assumes his belief based on use of the fallacies such as begging the question and if he is unwilling to accept the actual editions of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from the KJV is translated as a greater authority and standard for demonstrating some errors in KJV editions, how is his position that different from Ruckman's?
Can KJV-only advocates demonstrate that the actual textual criticism involved in the making of the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus was based on any clear textual measures or principles that were applied consistently and justly?
M. A, Screech wrote: “Historically speaking Erasmus’ work as a textual critic is fascinating; our own textual and linguistic approaches today descend from the example and writings of Erasmus” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. xiii). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, p. 142).
Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism” (Beyond What is Written, p. 28). KJV defender Thomas Strouse referred to Erasmus as a “textual critic” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 18). William Shaw maintained that Erasmus “is entitled to be called the father of modern Biblical criticism” (Introductory Lectures, p. 47). Leon-E. Halkin claimed that Erasmus “made himself the champion of textual criticism, and he applied that method to the Bible as well as to the classical authors” (Erasmus, p. 276).
In a letter to Martin Dorp, Erasmus is translated by Robert Adams as stating that “often the original true reading has been corrupted by an ignorant copyist” (Praise of Folly, p. 247). Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31). Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69). Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).
Jan Krans wrote: “Since Erasmus did not provide a formal list of text-critical rules, such a list has to be derived from his annotations, in which several descriptions of text-critical phenomena in general terms can be found” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 30). Jan Krans observed: “It has to be stressed that Erasmus did not apply his own ’rules’ in a consistent, methodical way. This cannot be expected, for he did not have a fixed canon of rules that could be used as a check-list to inspire and to guide text-critical reflections and decisions” (p. 51). Jason Harris maintained: “The readings in the TR were not based on consistent criteria” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 113). Jason Harris asserted: “The Textus Receptus is the product of textual criticism just like the eclectic text” (p. 130). Kevin Bauder maintained that “the TR was compiled by textual critics” (Bible Video Debate, p. 3).
M. A, Screech wrote: “Historically speaking Erasmus’ work as a textual critic is fascinating; our own textual and linguistic approaches today descend from the example and writings of Erasmus” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. xiii). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, p. 142).
Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism” (Beyond What is Written, p. 28). KJV defender Thomas Strouse referred to Erasmus as a “textual critic” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 18). William Shaw maintained that Erasmus “is entitled to be called the father of modern Biblical criticism” (Introductory Lectures, p. 47). Leon-E. Halkin claimed that Erasmus “made himself the champion of textual criticism, and he applied that method to the Bible as well as to the classical authors” (Erasmus, p. 276).
In a letter to Martin Dorp, Erasmus is translated by Robert Adams as stating that “often the original true reading has been corrupted by an ignorant copyist” (Praise of Folly, p. 247). Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31). Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69). Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).
Jan Krans wrote: “Since Erasmus did not provide a formal list of text-critical rules, such a list has to be derived from his annotations, in which several descriptions of text-critical phenomena in general terms can be found” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 30). Jan Krans observed: “It has to be stressed that Erasmus did not apply his own ’rules’ in a consistent, methodical way. This cannot be expected, for he did not have a fixed canon of rules that could be used as a check-list to inspire and to guide text-critical reflections and decisions” (p. 51). Jason Harris maintained: “The readings in the TR were not based on consistent criteria” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 113). Jason Harris asserted: “The Textus Receptus is the product of textual criticism just like the eclectic text” (p. 130). Kevin Bauder maintained that “the TR was compiled by textual critics” (Bible Video Debate, p. 3).
Since Erasmus did not leave a list of rules he used to determine how he compiled his TR, there is no way someone could conclude he was along the same stripes of Westcott and Hort.
Agreed, lets keep the thread moving on!
There was and is no accepted NO single Tr/Kjv as being the perfect word of God though!
Incorrect opinion.
According to a consistent application of your stated claim, you could not conclude that they were not along the same textual principles as those used by Westcott and Hort.
The textual practices of Erasmus can be used to indicate the principles or rules that he inconsistently followed. The actual changes that he wrote or made to his Greek NT manuscripts can be seen and examined since they still exist in those manuscripts. Also in his annotations, Erasmus did indicate or state some textual principles that he used. He just did not list them all, and did not follow them consistently and justly.
Jan Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31).
Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69).
Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144).