Just because the KJV is based on an eclectic text does not mean it is not the Word Of God. It is a much the word of God is as the NLT is for instance.
-
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
Just because the KJV is based on an eclectic text does not mean it is not the Word Of God. It is a much the word of God is as the NLT is for instance.
There are twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus. Some of the differences involved whole verses, clauses, and phrases. Perhaps one reason the printed editions of the Textus Receptus vary is because of the fact that the Greek manuscripts on which they are based also vary.
The KJV translators did not follow any one of printed editions of the Textus Receptus available to them 100%. Are you suggesting that those varying editions of the Textus Receptus cannot be the preserved word of God in those places where they differed from each other?
I asked FIRST. You tell me which of the original language texts is the preserved word of God and I will answer your question.
The Scrivener 1894 Greek NT as the Greek NT text and the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society for the Hebrew OT text.
HankD
You are saying that these texts, and these texts only are the preserved word of God in the original languages?
How do I know that is true? How can you prove this to me?
Well, that is not good enough, I want PROOF.
Tell me this, if these "supposed" preserved original language texts were properly translated into English, would they be the preserved and accurate word of God?
Just asking.... of course I still need proof of those Greek and Hebrew texts you claim are the preserved word of God in the original languages.
And how come nobody else knows about these preserved texts? You are the first person I have EVER seen identify them.
Sorry.
No translation is historically inspired no matter which receptor language. Having said that then I would say that translations are inspired by derivation as they are faithful to the original languages.
Again I'm sorry I can't give you that proof just as (for instance) I can't give you proof that God created the world in six sidereal days and rested on the seventh.
Maybe there are those who do.
Bottom line - I don't know about that statistic.
But it is what I believe.
HankD
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Thanks Hank
Hank...I'm actually going to thank you for your honesty on this matter even though I may disagree with the actual choice of "texts" that you accept as the "preserved originals". The fact is (and Winman...I think we ought to give him credit on this one) he does acknowledge that his position is a matter of FAITH (that he admits He can't prove) in the post previous to his last one. I would contend (and always have) that our position must be accepted in the same manner based on the best evidence that we can obtain and feel confident in. I believe the TR/KJV position with my whole heart but it is ultimately a matter of faith. Most of the CT/MV adherents I have encountered will refute that and spend pages and volumes touting and bragging about the supposed superior "scholars and scholarship" that supposedly underlies the position they embrace. You almost never hear them discuss the "faith" aspect of this or any subject related to it.
Again Hank....thanks for being honest! I can respect that.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Hank...I'm actually going to thank you for your honesty on this matter even though I may disagree with the actual choice of "texts" that you accept as the "preserved originals". The fact is (and Winman...I think we ought to give him credit on this one) he does acknowledge that his position is a matter of FAITH (that he admits He can't prove) in the post previous to his last one. I would contend (and always have) that our position must be accepted in the same manner based on the best evidence that we can obtain and feel confident in. I believe the TR/KJV position with my whole heart but it is ultimately a matter of faith. Most of the CT/MV adherents I have encountered will refute that and spend pages and volumes touting and bragging about the supposed superior "scholars and scholarship" that supposedly underlies the position they embrace. You almost never hear them discuss the "faith" aspect of this or any subject related to it.
Again Hank....thanks for being honest! I can respect that.
Bro.Greg:saint:
saturneptune
New Member
Does anyone really believe that the differences between the original Inspired transcripts and the main versions of today make one bit of difference in salvation?
Last edited by a moderator:
It was fun to adopt my opponents form of argument for once.
I am going to demand proof whenever I disagree with someone from now on. :thumbs:
I'm not saying there was no research, in fact this has been a nearly life long pursuit and I have made my faith choice(s) with prayer.
Also, I don't judge anyone else for their choice (or so I try not to do so).
And yes, it's true that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His death, burial and resurrection and that most (if not all the popular translations) of the MV's clearly carry that message.
In addition, the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and the acceptance thereof) are essential to the redemption of those who are of accountability.
HankD
You mean you were serious when you said "The Scrivener 1894 Greek NT as the Greek NT text and the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society for the Hebrew OT text"?
I thought you were stating that in jest.
Well you see, I could just use all the arguments that have been used against me countless times, such as asking where the preserved word of God in the original languages was before these came out?
I wonder if Logos1560 would agree with you??
This is why years ago I realized that NOBODY can prove the answer to this question. Whatever you believe, you must believe it by faith.
My faith in the KJB is based upon the presupposition that God has promised to preserve his word to all generations. I firmly believe there are many scriptures that support this. So for me, my job is to find that preserved text. And I do not believe it is hidden away someplace, I believe God wants all men to know his word, else why reveal it at all?
There are two major texts the Critical Text and the Received Text. Comparing the two, the Received Text and the King James Bible comes out ahead. There is no contest whatsoever between these two texts.
But they cannot BOTH be the word of God, the word of God cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16. So, these folks that say all versions are the word of God are all wet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally it doesn't matter to me what others think. There's no way to say the without sounding arrogant but it is my true feeling. I give others the same option.
In the NT OT passages are quoted - the same passage is worded differently yet they are both the word of God.
Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Luke 19:46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Isaiah 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Who is all wet? Mark, Luke or Isaiah?
HankD
That is the Holy Spirit speaking through each of these men differently, the Holy Spirit can rephrase himself any way he wants.
I do not see what this has to do with preservation of the scriptures, how do you determine which text is the preserved word of God?
Are you trying to say the Critical Text is just the Received Text rephrased by the Holy Spirit?
I'm not buying that one. God said not to add or diminish from his word, the scriptures cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16. This is Mark versus Mark, not Mark versus Luke or John. Completely different scenario altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
ALL of them. Unless you were present when each made, know WHO made each of them, WHERE and WHEN, you cannot prove any of them as being bogus, or any one of them as being the ONLY authentic one.
ALL were preserved by GOD for a reason.
There's BIBLICAL faith(substance and evidence, Hebrews 11:1), BLIND faith, based upon wishful thinking with NO supporting evidence, and just plain GUESSWORK, which is what picking-n-choosing among the Scriptural mss that GOD has preserved for us, is.
You are correct, I cannot prove which is the preserved text, and I have always said that. That said, I believe there is much evidence to support the KJB and the RT it was taken from over the CT.
But it is impossible that they BOTH can be the preserved word of God. Scripture cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16 (I only pick this passage as it is the most famous difference).
Now you talk about a BOGUS argument, saying the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses is nonsensical and downright dumb.
Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
Subjective Opinion...
Roby....as I have said before numerous times....there is no more Biblical (chapter and verse type) evidence to support the CT/MV position than there is to support the TR/KJV position. I challenge you or anybody else here to produce ONE verse in ANY version or translation that definitively says THIS IS THE ONE. We both believe what we believe based on some measure of FAITH.....but it is, of necessity, faith in extra-Biblical manuscript evidence and in some cases, simple logic in support of our respective positions. We both believe that the verses IN THE WORD OF GOD that talk about and make reference TO the Word of God are talking about THE Word of God. The difference is, we KJV'ers are talking about a particular Book that we can actually hold in our hands and see with our eyes. Your crowd is talking about a concept...a concept based upon a past reality of an Original Document that is no longer in physical existence. I do believe that the Word of God is forever settled in heaven ( you probably do too) But I do believe that He has seen to it that it was preserved perfectly here on earth as well ( we believe it is ONE Book...you believe it is a whole bunch of books). The emphasis in our day was on the initial English language translations due to English being the dominant prevailing language for the end-times world (although the Hispanics and the Arabs are trying their best to change that....Press#1 for English #2 for Espanol #3 for Arabic:tear
....but I also believe that any proper foreign language translation work in our day should be done using the correct methods and textual foundations for it to be valid and useful. I DON"T believe those translations should be done based on the KJV. I do believe they should be done based on the correct Greek and Hebrew textual family. That is NOT the CT or any derivative of it.
Anyway...you have "faith" in what you believe...and so do we. I'm completely sure that this whole thing won't get sorted out until after we are in the Lord's presence. It does YOU no harm for me to believe I have a perfect Bible in my hand. Conversely, it does me no harm to believe you don't. One of these days in the future you and I will be in total agreement with each other:smilewinkgrin:.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Roby....as I have said before numerous times....there is no more Biblical (chapter and verse type) evidence to support the CT/MV position than there is to support the TR/KJV position. I challenge you or anybody else here to produce ONE verse in ANY version or translation that definitively says THIS IS THE ONE. We both believe what we believe based on some measure of FAITH.....but it is, of necessity, faith in extra-Biblical manuscript evidence and in some cases, simple logic in support of our respective positions. We both believe that the verses IN THE WORD OF GOD that talk about and make reference TO the Word of God are talking about THE Word of God. The difference is, we KJV'ers are talking about a particular Book that we can actually hold in our hands and see with our eyes. Your crowd is talking about a concept...a concept based upon a past reality of an Original Document that is no longer in physical existence. I do believe that the Word of God is forever settled in heaven ( you probably do too) But I do believe that He has seen to it that it was preserved perfectly here on earth as well ( we believe it is ONE Book...you believe it is a whole bunch of books). The emphasis in our day was on the initial English language translations due to English being the dominant prevailing language for the end-times world (although the Hispanics and the Arabs are trying their best to change that....Press#1 for English #2 for Espanol #3 for Arabic:tear
....but I also believe that any proper foreign language translation work in our day should be done using the correct methods and textual foundations for it to be valid and useful. I DON"T believe those translations should be done based on the KJV. I do believe they should be done based on the correct Greek and Hebrew textual family. That is NOT the CT or any derivative of it.Anyway...you have "faith" in what you believe...and so do we. I'm completely sure that this whole thing won't get sorted out until after we are in the Lord's presence. It does YOU no harm for me to believe I have a perfect Bible in my hand. Conversely, it does me no harm to believe you don't. One of these days in the future you and I will be in total agreement with each other:smilewinkgrin:.
Bro.Greg:saint:
Inspector Javert
Active Member
Really? Even if they disagree with one another? If none of us can be 100% sure without doubt whether or not Mark 16:9-20 are in fact "Scripture" or not......and yet God was responsible for "preserving" some pretty contradictory evidence about what his Word actually WAS or WASN'T.
Doesn't that make him the author then of confusion?
fact 1:
Mark's gospel is without a doubt, the OLDEST gospel of the account of Jesus Christ.
fact 2:
Verses 9-20 account for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.....according to verse 16:9.....Jesus is simply a random dead dude, who NEVER rose from the dead, and thus, his claims towards Divinity are without warrant since that was the standard HE HIMSELF proposed by which to validate the veracity of his claims.
fact 3:
Paul's Epistles make it clear that it is in fact Christ's resurrection from the dead which is the source of our hope....for....if Christ be not risen, (I'm sure I read that somewhere) then neither can we assume his claim to Divinity, nor can we have hope in the future resurrection of the dead unto eternal life.
fact 4:
YOU would submit....that God would INTENT to "preserve" accounts which BOTH confirm and deny the proposition that Christ rose from the dead.....and that makes your position logically contradictory....and renders God the author of some serious mass confusion about the Deity of Jesus Christ and the validity of his claims.
fact 5:
KJVO activists....would submit that it is not possible that God is the author of confusion........but, you have no way of validating that claim since you can't know with any degree of certainty whether any group of manuscripts which submit that idea are either true or false.
Conclusion:
You REALLY have never sat back and relaxed for a few minutes and seriously meditated upon the validity, reasonableness, and logical necessity of your own claims; because, frankly........they are self-contradictory.
This is why I'm not anti-KJVO...........I'm not a dumb, un-informed, slavering, fundamentalist back-woods hick who has never spent a few contemplative moments looking at the evidence objectively.........as I maintain most anti-KJV's are.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status