Do KJVO place the KJV same par as the Greek NT?

[jbh28]

that the Kjv version has same authority/infallibility as the Greek NT texts themselves?

There are a few people that believe that, though I'm not sure I've encountered anyone like that on this board. I have on other boards though. The ones that believe that are part of the Ruckman crowd.

That is the Holy Spirit speaking through each of these men differently, the Holy Spirit can rephrase himself any way he wants.

That is true.

Are you trying to say the Critical Text is just the Received Text rephrased by the Holy Spirit?

Neither the Critical texts nor the TR were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. By that I mean that the people that compiled together the different texts were not kept from error as they did it.

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.

That is true. either Mark wrote it or he didn't. But that doesn't equate to only the TR or only the critical text being right. I would say that they both have places that are not correct. What I will say is that we do have all the words as God promised to preserve his words. I can say in complete confidence and faith in what God said that every single words that God gave us we have.

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

This is where much of the controversy lies. The consensus is that we compare texts. In the NT, we have over 5000(5800 was the last number I heard) manuscripts. We compare them together. Two major elements that people look at are majority and age. If we have 80 manuscripts that have "Peter went to the store", and then 3 manuscripts that have "Peter wen to hte store" it's pretty easy to determine which is the correct phrase. Those that put together the TR compared the texts that they had together and made decisions on what was correct when they came to variants.

Same thing today with the NA28 and UBS4. Where disagreements come about is over the proper weight to put. For instance you have 50 manuscripts which a particular phrase in it. 40 have one phrase, 10 have something a little different. One way to look at it is to say that whatever is majority is correct. This person would choose the 40. (note, the TR is not the majority text) Sometimes though there are reasons to go with a reading that's not majority. (Col 1:14, I John 5:7, Luke 17:36 are three that come to mind in the TR).

One reason to go with a non-majority reading is the age of the reading. Let's say you have the minority reading for the first 900 years, then you see it merge into what's now the majority. This is one reason to go with a reading that's not majority.

In the end, not one doctrine lives or dies on a variant. There are no doctrines that we are not sure about because of variants. This doesn't mean that choosing the correct variant isn't important, but it's not worth fighting over. Sure we can have disagreements. If someone wants to say that they believe the TR is close to what was originally written, that's fine. He has just as much of a right to do so as I have to say that the NA28 is closer. My doctrine will not be different because of it.

 

[DrJamesAch]

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.

When honest scholars took the time to actually objectively view the evidence, they have flipped their positions, i.e., NASB board member, Dr. Frank Logsdon.

The scholarship only crowd like James White criticize KJVO for not being willing to review "new evidence". Do they hold these same arguments to creation? Scientists come out with new evidence all the time that they claim supports evolution, so is it possible that some day a scientist will find something that refutes creation?

No honest Christian believes that, but yet "scholars" don't apply that same logic to the Bible.

 

[Winman]

That is true. either Mark wrote it or he didn't. But that doesn't equate to only the TR or only the critical text being right. I would say that they both have places that are not correct. What I will say is that we do have all the words as God promised to preserve his words. I can say in complete confidence and faith in what God said that every single words that God gave us we have.

Well, you've got nothing, you don't really believe God preserved his word. I believe one of the texts has to be the preserved text. I also do not believe God would hide the correct text. That leaves us with the two dominant texts, either the CT or the RT. I have compared the two and believe the RT comes out WAY ahead anyway you cut it. Therefore I believe the KJB translated from the RT is the preserved word of God in English.

This is where much of the controversy lies. The consensus is that we compare texts. In the NT, we have over 5000(5800 was the last number I heard) manuscripts. We compare them together. Two major elements that people look at are majority and age. If we have 80 manuscripts that have "Peter went to the store", and then 3 manuscripts that have "Peter wen to hte store" it's pretty easy to determine which is the correct phrase. Those that put together the TR compared the texts that they had together and made decisions on what was correct when they came to variants.

Same thing today with the NA28 and UBS4. Where disagreements come about is over the proper weight to put. For instance you have 50 manuscripts which a particular phrase in it. 40 have one phrase, 10 have something a little different. One way to look at it is to say that whatever is majority is correct. This person would choose the 40. (note, the TR is not the majority text) Sometimes though there are reasons to go with a reading that's not majority. (Col 1:14, I John 5:7, Luke 17:36 are three that come to mind in the TR).

One reason to go with a non-majority reading is the age of the reading. Let's say you have the minority reading for the first 900 years, then you see it merge into what's now the majority. This is one reason to go with a reading that's not majority.

In the end, not one doctrine lives or dies on a variant. There are no doctrines that we are not sure about because of variants. This doesn't mean that choosing the correct variant isn't important, but it's not worth fighting over. Sure we can have disagreements. If someone wants to say that they believe the TR is close to what was originally written, that's fine. He has just as much of a right to do so as I have to say that the NA28 is closer. My doctrine will not be different because of it.

Well, I agree with all this, this is why I have said in the past that the KJB translators had many tests to determine the correct text. They compared many various texts as you have described above. I happen to think they did an excellent job and resulted in a perfect translation. By perfect I do not mean there were not typographical errors and what not, but they got all the text and they did a good job of accurately translating it.

But in the end, I believe by faith that God preserved his word as he promised. I start with this assumption. Therefore I need only FIND the preserved text. I believe the KJB translated from the RT is that preserved text.

 

[DrJamesAch]

The Jews had a COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Hebrew. The early NT church had the COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Greek. Persecution caused copies to be divided among groups (Donatists, Waldenses et al).

Once English became the dominate language, there is no reason to believe that God did not aid the translators in selecting the variants and fragments of other readings to make a COMPLETE and PERFECT ENGLISH translation.

KJVO critics argue that since the complete word of God was not in one LOCATION at the same time and place as the early church had, and as Israel had it, that it can't be proven that God preserved His word, and erect straw man arguments to compare changes in letters and spelling to the other corrupt texts that remove and distort entire passages. Hardly and honest comparison.

The bottom line is that KJVO critics simply don't BELIEVE that God preserved a perfect written account of His story. They believe that God dropped the ball and permitted the NT church to thrive on less than what He provided Israel and the early NT church, and it is based on that premise that they never see the evidence objectively in the same manner that atheists never see creation because they begin and end with the premise that there is no God. Bible scoffers begin and end with the premise that God did not, could not preserve His words.

 

[Winman]

The Jews had a COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Hebrew. The early NT church had the COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Greek. Persecution caused copies to be divided among groups (Donatists, Waldenses et al).

Once English became the dominate language, there is no reason to believe that God did not aid the translators in selecting the variants and fragments of other readings to make a COMPLETE and PERFECT ENGLISH translation.

KJVO critics argue that since the complete word of God was not in one LOCATION at the same time and place as the early church had, and as Israel had it, that it can't be proven that God preserved His word, and erect straw man arguments to compare changes in letters and spelling to the other corrupt texts that remove and distort entire passages. Hardly and honest comparison.

The bottom line is that KJVO critics simply don't BELIEVE that God preserved a perfect written account of His story. They believe that God dropped the ball and permitted the NT church to thrive on less than what He provided Israel and the early NT church, and it is based on that premise that they never see the evidence objectively in the same manner that atheists never see creation because they begin and end with the premise that there is no God. Bible scoffers begin and end with the premise that God did not, could not preserve His words.

Well written, what I wanted to say but couldn't express. These guys really do not believe in preservation at all. It is all LIP SERVICE only.

 

[jbh28]

Well, you've got nothing, you don't really believe God preserved his word. I believe one of the texts has to be the preserved text.

Yes I do believe God has preserved his words just as He said he would. I believe just as the KJV translators did. You believe something different. Did the KJV translators not believe that God preserved His words even though there was not a perfect Greek text.

I also do not believe God would hide the correct text. That leaves us with the two dominant texts, either the CT or the RT. I have compared the two and believe the RT comes out WAY ahead anyway you cut it. Therefore I believe the KJB translated from the RT is the preserved word of God in English.

You're fine to believe that. There's no reason to slander someone else and say that they don't believe God preserved his words.

Well, I agree with all this, this is why I have said in the past that the KJB translators had many tests to determine the correct text. They compared many various texts as you have described above. I happen to think they did an excellent job and resulted in a perfect translation. By perfect I do not mean there were not typographical errors and what not, but they got all the text and they did a good job of accurately translating it.

But in the end, I believe by faith that God preserved his word as he promised. I start with this assumption. Therefore I need only FIND the preserved text. I believe the KJB translated from the RT is that preserved text.

Just don't assume that one text has to be 100% perfect in order to believe God preserved his words. The RT has not always existed.

 

[jbh28]

The Jews had a COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Hebrew. The early NT church had the COMPLETE word of God when the universal language was Greek. Persecution caused copies to be divided among groups (Donatists, Waldenses et al).

Once English became the dominate language, there is no reason to believe that God did not aid the translators in selecting the variants and fragments of other readings to make a COMPLETE and PERFECT ENGLISH translation.

Actually there is. This would mean that God is giving us more revelation. (OT, NT, KJV). The writers of Scripture claimed to be writing Scripture directly from God, the KJV translators said they they were not inspired by God in their writings. The Bible never said that he would do that. God did not keep copyist from making copy mistakes(hence why we have variants), so there is no reason to believe that God would keep a group of translators from making translation mistakes. What God promised is that He would preserve his words, and He has done that.

The bottom line is that KJVO critics simply don't BELIEVE that God preserved a perfect written account of His story.

Yes we do, we just believe it as God said it. His words would be preserved forever.

They believe that God dropped the ball and permitted the NT church to thrive on less than what He provided Israel and the early NT church,

No, the NT had both the OT and the NT. Not sure where your "less" is coming from. The NT church had the OT and the NT. They had the word of God.

and it is based on that premise that they never see the evidence objectively in the same manner that atheists never see creation because they begin and end with the premise that there is no God.

What we believe is based on what God said.

Bible scoffers begin and end with the premise that God did not, could not preserve His words.

there are no "bible scoffers" on here. Please don't slander other brothers and sisters in Christ. We love the Bible. We do believe God can and did preserve His words. I've not read one person on this board that doesn't believe that God has preserved his words. If you know of one, let me know. Why do we believe that God preserves his words? Because He said He would. What he didn't say is that he would come back and in 1611 give us a translation in English. Why? Because it's not in the Bible. So don't compare what we believe to atheists. Atheists reject the Bible, we don't. What you are advocating isn't in the Bible. Creation is in the Bible.

 

[Winman]

Yes I do believe God has preserved his words just as He said he would. I believe just as the KJV translators did. You believe something different. Did the KJV translators not believe that God preserved His words even though there was not a perfect Greek text. You're fine to believe that. There's no reason to slander someone else and say that they don't believe God preserved his words.


Just don't assume that one text has to be 100% perfect in order to believe God preserved his words. The RT has not always existed.

What does it mean when you say God preserved his words? That these Greek words can be found in a lexicon? Is that what you mean?

Please explain in detail how you think God preserved his words.

 

[Logos1560]

Well, I agree with all this, this is why I have said in the past that the KJB translators had many tests to determine the correct text.

Where is the list of the textual criticism principles or tests actually used by the KJV translators themselves?

 

[Logos1560]

more than 2 Greek text editions?

There are two major texts the Critical Text and the Received Text.

But they cannot BOTH be the word of God,

Where is your proof that there are only two major texts?

Are all the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus 100% in agreement?

Are all the varying editions of the Critical Text in 100% agreement?

Are you skipping over or ignoring a third Greek text--the Majority Text or Byzantine textform?

The Byzantine Textform as compiled by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont differs from the Textus Receptus with its minority readings and its readings with no Greek manuscript support.

Are there not more than two Greek New Testament text editions?

Are you suggesting that the 70 to 90% of the Critical Text that is in agreement with the Textus Receptus is not the word of God?

 

[Logos1560]

The bottom line is that KJVO critics simply don't BELIEVE that God preserved a perfect written account of His story. They believe that God dropped the ball

Bible scoffers begin and end with the premise that God did not, could not preserve His words.

Do KJV-only advocates begin and end with the premise that God did not preserve His original language words and that the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 replaces those original language words that they will not accept as the standard and greater authority for the trying of all translations?

Do KJV-only advocates simply not believe that God preserved a perfect written account of His story before 1611 or 1769? When did the KJV supposedly become perfect? Was it after over 140 words were added to the 1611 edition, after 45 words were omitted from the 1611 edition, after the number [singular/plural] of 60 words was changed, after the tense of some verbs was changed, after the case, gender, or number of some pronouns was changed, and after a number of other words were changed? Was it after over 2000 changes were made to the 1611?

No original language manuscripts and no printed original language texts and no translations in other languages made before 1611 agree perfectly and completely with the KJV. The KJV was made from varying imperfect original language sources and varying imperfect translations in various languages.

KJV-only advocates use fallacies to argue for their modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

JoJ would say the Bzt Greek text, I would say CT, others MT, point is that god preserved for us His word to us in the ORIGINAl language texts that translations based upon, so ALL like nasb/Niv/HCSB/NKJV can calim to be word of God in English as much as the kjv!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Perfect/Inerrant texts were the original documents, while the hebrew/Greek text preserved for us today are very close to them, can be considered as word of God extant to us, so ANY english version off them done rightly is word of God today!

You require perfection in a bible version, NOT required to have a reliable/infallible version!

 

[Winman]

JoJ would say the Bzt Greek text, I would say CT, others MT, point is that god preserved for us His word to us in the ORIGINAl language texts that translations based upon, so ALL like nasb/Niv/HCSB/NKJV can calim to be word of God in English as much as the kjv!

Hey, I am fine with you believing the CT text or any other text is the preserved text for whatever reasons you choose. At least you are believing God's promise that he would preserve his word.

But you cannot insist that one text that contains the last 12 verses of Mark and another text that omits the last 12 verses of Mark are both preserved. One of them (or both) must be in error, but they cannot both be correct, that is impossible.

Pick whichever text you like, but they cannot ALL be the word of God.

 

[Rippon]

KJVO advocates believe so much in the KJV that it is an article of faith with them. So much so that it is in their primary doctrines such as the Trinity, resurrection, atonement etc. Tis a big shame. The KJV revisers would be spinning in their graves to hear such unbiblical junk.

 

[Winman]

KJVO advocates believe so much in the KJV that it is an article of faith with them. So much so that it is in their primary doctrines such as the Trinity, resurrection, atonement etc. Tis a big shame. The KJV revisers would be spinning in their graves to hear such unbiblical junk.

Wow, somebody finally gets it. Yes, we believe by FAITH, not proof, just as I believe God parted the Red Sea by faith, and not by proof.

It just hasn't kicked in with you and a few others here how important faith is has it? That is all the Bible talks about from beginning to end, and it goes right over your head.

You guys all want proof, and all of you are doubters.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where is your proof that there are only two major texts?

Are all the twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus 100% in agreement?

Are all the varying editions of the Critical Text in 100% agreement?

Are you skipping over or ignoring a third Greek text--the Majority Text or Byzantine textform?

The Byzantine Textform as compiled by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont differs from the Textus Receptus with its minority readings and its readings with no Greek manuscript support.

Are there not more than two Greek New Testament text editions?

Are you suggesting that the 70 to 90% of the Critical Text that is in agreement with the Textus Receptus is not the word of God?

Our KJVO friends BIG mistake in this is their forcing the concept that the bible MUST be inerrant/w/o mistakes to be considered to be the WoG to us today...

ONLY the originals were such, but God preserved to us today in various greek/Hebrew texts to base translation upon his extant word, so essentially same , so ANY English version rightly translated from those base texts could be seen as being English word of God to us now!

They require what the originals were, we need infallible bibles!

 

[Yeshua1]

KJVO advocates believe so much in the KJV that it is an article of faith with them. So much so that it is in their primary doctrines such as the Trinity, resurrection, atonement etc. Tis a big shame. The KJV revisers would be spinning in their graves to hear such unbiblical junk.

some holding to an EXTREME view of it have said that the word John mentioned in John 1 referred to the Kjv itself!

 

[Winman]

Our KJVO friends BIG mistake in this is their forcing the concept that the bible MUST be inerrant/w/o mistakes to be considered to be the WoG to us today...

ONLY the originals were such, but God preserved to us today in various greek/Hebrew texts to base translation upon his extant word, so essentially same , so ANY English version rightly translated from those base texts could be seen as being English word of God to us now!

They require what the originals were, we need infallible bibles!

Obviously English is not your first language, because you do not understand what the word "preserved" means.

If the Bible is full of errors, then it has not been preserved.

 

[jbh28]

What does it mean when you say God preserved his words? That these Greek words can be found in a lexicon? Is that what you mean?

Please explain in detail how you think God preserved his words.

What i mean is that the words that were originally written down will be preserved. We have over 5000 Greek NT manuscripts (plus Hebrew manuscripts, not sure the number). It's far above anything else we have manuscript evidence for. With Homar's Illiad, we have 643 manuscripts. The just the NT alone, we have over 5000. We have an abundance. God's words cannot be lost.