NOT "full od errors', but even the most ardant believer in the bible needs to realise that NO version/text are fully perfect, as their were some scribal inserts, renderings touched, variants, problems in numbers and portions of especially OT text very hard to discern...
-
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!
Do KJVO place the KJV same par as the Greek NT?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
NOT "full od errors', but even the most ardant believer in the bible needs to realise that NO version/text are fully perfect, as their were some scribal inserts, renderings touched, variants, problems in numbers and portions of especially OT text very hard to discern...
OK, so when the KJB translators went through all of these manuscripts and compared them to determine what is scripture and what is not, would that not result in the preserved word of God?
Why do the scriptures have to be in the original languages to be preserved, when we have examples of scripture in the Bible in a translated language, such as the scripture the Ethiopian eunuch was reading?
Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Here the scriptures themselves say the Ethiopian eunuch was reading "scripture". Was the scripture he was reading in the original language it was written? NO, he was reading scriptures written in Greek. Isaiah was not originally written in Greek, so this was a translation, yet the scriptures themselves call the text he was reading "scripture".
So why do you and others insist that only the original languages can be scripture when scripture itself refutes this?
Last edited by a moderator:
Over the centuries after the KJV production we have had the high privilege of having access to thousands of ancient documents that the KJV team never even knew existed.
"Determined what was scripture and what was not"? They did no such thing.
I've never said that the Scripture couldn't be translated into other languages. I do believe that the original words in the original languages will be preserved forever. Those words(Scripture) can be translated into another language and still be called Scripture. Never have said otherwise.
You are being a little too clever here.
You say you believe the original "words" in the original languages will be preserved forever??
Do you simply mean that the original Greek "words" used in scripture will be preserved in a lexicon somewhere? Or do you believe THE SCRIPTURES in the original languages will be preserved? There is a gigantic difference between the two.
And do you believe THE SCRIPTURES can be translated into another language and be preserved in that translated into language?
Please answer those questions, there is a HUGE difference between saying "original words" and saying SCRIPTURE.
You should know better than to play with me, I have always been on to you.
Yes, God said that his words would not pass away. I believe that to mean that his words will not pass away.
The original words(Scripture) will be preserved yes in the original language in the thousands of manuscripts we have today.
Of course. We have had the Bible translated into many languages over the years.
No, they are the same thing. the original words are Scripture. These original words can be translated and still be called Scripture. I've never said otherwise. What I did say is that I believe that the Greek/Hebrew words will last forever. All the English Bibles could be lost and God would still be fulfilling his promise to preserve his words.
LOL, good to know, but I'm not playing any game. I wish I were though, but out team didn't make the softball championship. oh well.
Well, I think you are trying to be clever. If I were to say,
"For the world so loved God, that his only begotten Son gave he, that whosever perish should not believeth, have life but everlasting"
Now, that is all the "words" in John 3:16, but that could hardly be called "scripture".
Do you believe that SCRIPTURE was preserved in the original languages. You KNOW what I am asking, so don't play games with me.
Again, you fixate on the word "words" as opposed to "scripture". They are not the same and you know it.
It depends on what you mean when you say Bible. I mean God's preserved scriptures, not just a bunch of words.
This is not correct, the words must be in order and transmit the proper meaning that God intended. If words are omitted, or if improper words are used that give a false meaning, that is not scripture.
Oh, you're still playing. You would rather be clever than correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the words making sense. I mean the same thing when God says that his words will not pass away. The words are Scripture. And obviously, we mean words how they were given, not scrambled up.
I've answered this already many times. Yes, Scripture, the words that God gave us is preserved in the original languages.
Yes they are. Scripture is the writings, the writings of words. God said that his "words shall not pass away." He's referring to Scripture there. It's obviously not pieces of paper he's referring to, but the words that He gave us. It's not just the thoughts(thought that's obviously included) but the words.
You are making something out of nothing here.
Never said otherwise. I thought you were smart enough to figure out that I didn't mean that the words could be scrambled up which would not make sense.
Well, I'm smart enough to know you like to play word games. That's your problem, not mine. Frankly, I don't consider spending eternity in heaven or hell a game to be played to stroke my ego.
But I am glad to see you believe "scripture" was preserved in the original languages.
And you also said these preserved scriptures could be translated. Excellent.
Then are you willing to admit the POSSIBILITY that the King James Bible could be the preserved scriptures in the English language?
And do you believe the "preserved scriptures" could both contain and omit scripture such as the last 12 verses of Mark 16?
I've not one time ever played a word game with you. You have accused me many times of it, yet there is never an actual case that I've done that. Point in case here.
Yes, always said I believe that.
yes, always said I believe that.
of course it is, just like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV is as well. You may ask about the differences, well obviously, where any translation is wrong(translational or textual) that part would not be correct.
Of course not. No one has ever said that. you've been told this countless times, but you seem to think you are clever in bringing it up. either Mark wrote it or he didn't. No one has said that both is true.
Pretty sad when people don't trust you isn't it? And you cannot think of any reason for that? I don't believe it.
Now I agree, any one of these versions could be the preserved word of God, but how can versions that disagree BOTH be the preserved word of God?
Just what does "preserved" mean to you?
Well, the Critical Text from which most of your modern versions like the ESV, NASB, and the NIV were taken OMIT these 12 verses.
Yes, they mention these verses in the footnotes, but the CT text OMITS them. Bogus if you ask me. Those verses should be there or they shouldn't.
So how could these particular versions and the KJB ALL be preserved?
i'm pretty trustworthy. You could ask anyone that knows me.
Well, the part that's wrong, would be of course...wrong.
Matt 24:35 "my words shall not pass away."
actually, that's not true. It marks that it's a variant, but includes the text.
true, but nothing wrong with noting the variant like the KJV translators did.
Well, if a word is wrong, then it's wrong and not Scripture. all translations have errors in them. just like all manuscripts have errors in them. I believe the Scripture is preserved just like they did in the 1500's.
BTW Winman, Scrivener's 1894 Greek NT not only includes the last 12 verses of Mark but 1 John 5:7 (without a maginal or footnote) as well.
HankD
Not to be cruel, but you blew it with me a long time ago. You like to play cute and clever. You even admitted it was a game once and that you believe you are smarter than others. I don't forget.
If you want people to believe you, you have to talk straight. If that offends you, too bad, I really don't worry about offending you, because I don't trust you. See how that works?
Well, that is probably where you and I disagree on preservation. I do not believe there are any errors in the KJB. I actually believe it is without error. That is what preserved means to me, God said his words are "pure" words, that means without error.
If the last 12 verses of Mark 16 are the word of God, then none of the versions based on the CT are preserved in my view.
Of course, you can chose to believe "preserved" means any ol' thing, and that is the one of the reasons I do not trust you, you are fast and loose with common definitions of words. All Calvinists are, "all" means "some", "world" means "the elect only", etc... Hard to trust folks when you don't know what they mean when they say a word.
Back to "words" again, I thought you agreed that we are talking about scripture which would include all the words and the intended meaning of all the words.
Again, playing with words. Fact is, the footnote itself casts doubt on whether the verses should be there. Pretty lame, they should make a commitment to either include the verses or exclude them, a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.
I do not agree. I do not believe the KJB has errors in it, and no person has ever proved the KJB has errors in it.
Now, ask me about the MVs, and I can show you some errors. :thumbsup:
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never played word games with you winman, not once. You have accused me many times, but it's just a smokescreen.
I do, I've never lied nor played word games on here. You accused me here, yet as usual I haven't done it.
Was the Bible preserved before the KJV? It would have to be. My definition is based on the Bible. Having a perfect translation isn't required to have preservation. The Bible never says that and of course it's inconsistent with history. The Bible was preserved in the 1500's and yet no KJV.
The CT includes the last 12 verses of Mark. All versions based on the CT have the last 12 verses of mark. If they didn't have it, and it should be in there, then they would be missing part of the Bible. That's the only thing.
Again, no I'm not. I quoted Scripture. Stop trying to pin point games on me. Preserve means that the words of God shall not pass away. No word games. never done it. I just quoted Scripture. That's what it means.
of course, I've ALWAYS meant that.
You do realize that the KJV translators did this as well. It's not lame, just being honest. There is a variant there. They, as did the KJV translators, let the reader know that there's a variant there.
You can believe that water is not wet if you like. there are proven errors, but we would be getting off topic.
I'm sure you and I both can. But off topic. We are discussing preservation. Having a perfect translation is not required to have the preserved word of God.
JBH said:
So, if every single Bible in the world, and every single manuscript in the original languages was destroyed, until all that remained was one single document that showed the first chapter of Genesis only, and this was all that remained of the scriptures in the entire world, you would tell everybody that the Word of God is preserved?
Is that what you mean when you say the word of God is preserved?
Or, if someone adds hundreds of words and verses to the original scriptures in the original languages, would you tell everyone the Word of God has been preserved?
Do you understand what the word "preserved" means?
According to the definition of "preserved," how could different words in a different language be a preservation of the exact, specific original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?
Do you oppose "word" preservation and are you actually claiming "meaning" preservation?
John I Morris
Member
According to my 32 tears of experience the KJVO people do put the KJV on the same level as the original writings (of which we haev none of today). A guy by the name of Peter Ruckman said that "the KJV corrects the Greek."
I guess if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul its good enough for me. JUST KIDDING! Believe what you will, but KNOW why you believe it. That is all a person can do.
:jesus:
I guess if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul its good enough for me. JUST KIDDING! Believe what you will, but KNOW why you believe it. That is all a person can do.
:jesus:
If a Greek or Hebrew text is properly translated and gives the exact meaning of the original text, then it is preserved.
I have already shown that the Bible itself shows an example of this, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the book of Isaiah, and yet the scriptures themselves call the text he was reading "the scriptures". So obviously a translation can be preserved and scripture.
What I am trying to get from JBH28 is "his" definition of preservation as concerning the scriptures. If I understand him correctly, the texts in the original languages could have any number of omissions or additions, but if they contain ANY word from the original text he considers this preserved.
I would ask you the same question. If all the Bibles in the whole world were destroyed including every single type of scripture manuscript or text small or large, if there remained just one single page of scripture in the original languages, would you still say the scriptures are preserved because one single page of scripture remains?
Please answer that question.
Last edited by a moderator:
God did NOT need top preserve theoriginals to us, he chose to preserve to us essentially those books, in the Greek/hebrew texts, and those are infallible, not perfect, so any version translated off them and done rightly are also infallible, not perfect though!
That is why no exactly correct/right greek/hebrew text available to us today, but ALl available to use are essentially same as ythe originals, just NOT error free/perfect!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status