Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?

[TCassidy]

Luke 2:14 KJB, NKJV - "on earth peace, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN."

NASB, RSV, ESV, NET - "on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED."

NIV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "peace on earth TO THOSE ON WHOM HIS FAVOR RESTS."

And what does this have to do with my belief that the Byzantine Textform is superior?

Do you also believe that the NIV is without "error of fact" when it says "to those on whom his favor rests"?

I believe δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια is without error of fact. If you believe I am wrong please feel free to tell me which of the words above are wrong in the Greek. And tell my why you think they are wrong. Show me the evidence that proves they are wrong.

Do you believe that he angels historically said "to those on whom his favor rests"?

I believe the angels said δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω και επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια.

Here, Jordan, let me help you. The Greek words in question are επι γης ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκια. Get out your Strongs and look up each word.

επι = on (Strongs 1909)
γης = land or ground, and by implication, the whole world, planet, earth. (Strongs 1093)
ειρηνη = peace, or rest, or prosperity, by implication the peacefulness of having them. (Strongs 151)
εν = in (Strongs 1722)
ανθρωποις = Humans, human-kind, humanity, people (Strongs 444)
ευδοκια = kindness, or good purpose (Strongs 2107)

So, Jordan, a literal reading would be "on earth peace in men of good purpose (or kindness)."

In fact, Jordan, all the English versions say the same thing. You just misunderstood what the KJV meant when it said "peace on earth good will toward men." It does not mean the peace was being given to (toward) the men, but rather it is saying that men of good purpose have the peace and well being of others as their philosophy of life.

Your problem of understanding is that you are unaware (probably because your pastor can't read Greek) that the last word, ευδοκια, is a noun in the genitive (case of belonging to, or what we might call a possessive), singular, feminine and goes with ειρηνη. So it says the "kindness" belongs to the men of "peace."

Jordan, peace loving people are kind people. And where does that peace come from? It comes from God, of course, so these men in question certainly have the grace (unmerited favor) of God resting on them. Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

"In the Textus Receptus the rich young ruler calls Jesus "Good Master" and Jesus responds asking the ruler, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." In the Nestle-Aland the conversation is about "what is good" rather than about Jesus being good and the inference that Jesus must therefore be God."

Why do you bring up the NA text? We were talking about the Byzantine Textform.

is Nestle Aland text here without "error of fact" that Jesus said "what is good" rather than "why callest thou me good" ?

Why do you bring up the NA text? We were talking about the Byzantine Textform.

Revelation 22:19: The Textus Receptus says "book of life", not "tree of life" as opposed to the Alexandrian.

And?

Are you to tell me that "book of life" and "tree of life" are both not a "error of fact"?

I believe καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ is without error of fact. If you disagree could you point out to me where that error is and provide the proof it is wrong.

For you to try and imply that between the different Greek source texts that there are not substantial, factual, differences is deceptive.

You have, as yet, not given me an error of fact. But please, keep trying.

There's one thing between a differences in choices of translations of words for English translations, but the above examples are quite different than that.

You have yet to explain to me what the error is and why you can prove it is an error.

In the examples I cited above, it's clear that at least one of the two texts are in error.

It is true there may be variants in the Greek text but how does that prove an error of fact in the bible?

You should be honest

I am going to stop you right there and warn you not to call my honesty into question again. You will not like the result.

and admit that the Alexandrian text does in fact have "errors of fact", or at least be honest and admit you don't really think that the Byzantine textform is Infallible, because if you really do, the above examples from the Alexandrian texts are in fact errors.

You have not, as yet, shown me an error of fact in either the Byzantine or Alexandrian textforms. All you have done is show some variants in the English translations. And even then you failed to provide any evidence that any of them were, in fact, an error, and additionally, you failed to post any proof of your charge of error.

Jordan, let me give you a little grandfatherly advice. You cutting and pasting from a KJVO web site put up by people with no knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Text-Critical analysis, grammar or syntax does not trump the ability to actually read the bible in the language in which it was inspired and study the manuscript evidence for over 50 years.

 

[TCassidy]

Only the originals are perfectly infallible.

I disagree. I think you may have conflated inerrancy with infallibility.

We do not have the originals of the First Edition KJV1611.

Yes we do. There are over 200 original, first edition KJVs still in various libraries and museums around the world. Another one was found in an old church cupboard last year. And you can get a photographic facsimile, original size, from a number of sources including "Greatsite.com." A little pricey, but I bought one.

 

[TCassidy]

Whole post because I gave two other examples where the Greek texts have differences of real substance.

But Jordan, you didn't. Show me where the two different major textforms differ in the verses you posted.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I have a feeling this thread is a KJVO witch hunt.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Which KJV verses do you find to be in error Jordan?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

But Jordan, you didn't. Show me where the two different major textforms differ in the verses you posted.

Here is the Greek for the TR and The Wescott and Hort text in Revelation 21:19

TR 19 και G2532 CONJ  εαν G1437 COND  τις G5100 X-NSM  αφαιρη G851 V-PAS-3S  απο G575 PREP  των G3588 T-GPM  λογων G3056 N-GPM  βιβλου G976 N-GSF  της G3588 T-GSF  προφητειας G4394 N-GSF  ταυτης G3778 D-GSF  αφαιρησει G851V-FAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  το G3588 T-ASN  μερος G3313 N-ASN  αυτου G846 P-GSM  απο G575 PREP  βιβλου G976 N-GSF  της G3588 T-GSF  ζωης G2222 N-GSF  και G2532 CONJ  εκ G1537 PREP  της G3588 T-GSF  πολεως G4172 N-GSF  της G3588 T-GSF  αγιας G40 A-GSF  και G2532 CONJ  των G3588 T-GPN  γεγραμμενων G1125V-RPP-GPN  εν G1722 PREP  βιβλιω G975N-DSN  τουτω G3778 D-DSN 

Wescott and Hort 19 και G2532 CONJ  εαν G1437 COND  τις G5100 X-NSM  αφελη G851 V-2AAS-3S  απο G575 PREP  των G3588 T-GPM  λογων G3056 N-GPM  του G3588 T-GSN  βιβλιου G975 N-GSN  της G3588 T-GSF  προφητειας G4394 N-GSF  ταυτης G3778D-GSF  αφελει G851 V-2FAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  θεος G2316 N-NSM  το G3588 T-ASN  μερος G3313 N-ASN  αυτου G846 P-GSM  απο G575 PREP  του G3588 T-GSN  ξυλου G3586 N-GSN  της G3588 T-GSF  ζωης G2222 N-GSF  και G2532 CONJ  εκ G1537 PREP  της G3588 T-GSF  πολεως G4172 N-GSF  της G3588 T-GSF  αγιας G40 A-GSF  των G3588 T-GPN  γεγραμμενων G1125 V-RPP-GPN  εν G1722 PREP  τω G3588 T-DSN  βιβλιω G975 N-DSN  τουτω G3778 D-DSN 

You see here that G976 (Book) is replaced in the Wescott and Hort text by G3586 (Tree, Wood,Stake, Cross)
Are both of these texts without any error? How can you possibly say both of these texts are without any errors, one says book, the other says tree... Which one is it that God will take ones part from? You have to admit one (Or both) of them is wrong. I am not here to argue which is the true reading, but to simply point out that for you to say or imply that all biblical texts we have are infallible is simply illogical.

 

[HankD]

I disagree. I think you may have conflated inerrancy with infallibility.

You are right! I should have said - only the originals contain perfect infallibility.

e.g.

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

ASV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Which is the infallible word of God.
Of course we both know about the 30-40 page debate presented by Burgon as to why it should be theos and not hos.

Trinitarians say its theos.
JW's say its hos.

Which presents the infallible truth?
It can't be both.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Yes we do. There are over 200 original, first edition KJVs still in various libraries and museums around the world. Another one was found in an old church cupboard last year. And you can get a photographic facsimile, original size, from a number of sources including "Greatsite.com." A little pricey, but I bought one.

OK We don't have the original hand written committee version which was presumed to have perished in a library fire. And yes I know the theory that there may not even have been an original hand written copy which further complicates things for the KJVO folks (Remember I was one).

Also my point which I could have worded better - I'll ask a question: Have you compared the Oxford with the Cambridge editions to verify if they are identical or not.

Studies have shown they are not, some of which were link included in my post.

OY VEY, you bought one!?

Thanks for the website!

HankD

 

[HankD]

Does the facsimile contain the prologue, to the reader, the calendars, the Apocrypha, etc....


Thanks
HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Have you compared the Oxford with the Cambridge editions to verify if they are identical or not.

No need to. I know they are different. If they were not there would be no need for two editions.

An easy way to see which one you have is to check Jeremiah 34:16. If it says, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." - then you have a Cambridge.

If it says, "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids." - then you have an Oxford.

Oh, by the way, "ye" is the correct reading, the Hebrew is plural. When typesetting the old fashioned way, by hand, apprentice printers were told to "watch your p's and q's." That admonition was necessary for type was set backwards and when the impression was made it was reversed on the paper. A "p" is a backward "q". The same is true of the older typefaces regarding "h" and "y" the "h" is just an upside down "y". An old uncorrected typesetters error that has survived for 233 years!

Does the facsimile contain the prologue, to the reader, the calendars, the Apocrypha, etc....

Yep. Everything.

 

[TCassidy]

Here is the Greek for the TR and The Wescott and Hort text in Revelation 21:19

Sorry, but Revelation 21:19 reads "And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;"

The Greek for Revelation 21:19 reads οἱ θεμέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ κεκοσμημένοι· ὁ θεμέλιος ὁ πρῶτος ἴασπις, ὁ δεύτερος σάπφιρος, ὁ τρίτος χαλκηδών, ὁ τέταρτος σμάραγδος,

Now, if you mean Revelation 22:19 then it reads καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

But the TR reads και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω

The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV reading is based, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When Erasmus compiled his Greek NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation (the last page of his manuscript was missing). So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. The reading “the tree” of life is found in all Greek mss, and is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators.

If you would do a little study you would see the following: Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And the context of Revelation chapter 22 is even more interesting. Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

And Revelation 22:14 tells us we are talking about a tree, not a book.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

You see, Jordan, according to the bible in Revelation 2:7 it is the Tree of Life that gives life. Not a book. All the book does is record who has eternal life and who does not.

If you want to stick with "book" fine, but you are saying that God either did not preserve his word from 100 AD until 1525, or that He is too stupid to know the difference between "tree" and "book."

Tell you want. Look up the text-critical evidence for the "tree" reading and the text critical evidence for the "book" reading. See for yourself that "book" is the result of a mistake by Erasmus and has no manuscript support at all. God said "tree." The context of Revelation 22 says "tree." The inspired reading is "tree."

 

[TCassidy]

Which presents the infallible truth?

Theos.

It can't be both.

Actually, it can without changing the meaning of the passage. "He" was manifest in flesh. Who is "He?" Verse 15 makes it clear it is "God." And even verse 16 makes it clear by addressing "Godliness." So, even if you change "God" to "He" the antecedent of "He" would still be "God."

 

[rsr]

I Timothy 3:16 is one of the weaker variants to pick on, IMO, as Doc has pointed out.

As to Revelation 22:19, there is no theological difference between the two readings. Doc has pointed out that "tree of life" fits with many other references in Revelation.

But we all know that the Latin versions preserved the original words, not the Greek.

There are reasons to believe that Latin witnesses of Revelation could be more accurate than Greek witnesses. The first reason being that the book of Revelation was canonized first by the Latin Church whereas the Greek Church took until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. While influential Greek fathers in the 4th century such as Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus were still hesitant to canonize Revelation, Christians ministering in the Latin West in the 2nd century - Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian - recognized its canonicity early on. The Muratorian Canon, the oldest known canon that includes Revelation, is a Latin canon. Codex Vaticanus, a Greek codex, does not even have Revelation. Latin commentaries on Revelation by Victorinus and Tyconius existed by the fourth century, but the earliest known Greek commentary on Revelation is by Andreas of Caesarea in the seventh century. Thus the reading "book of life" is the reading of Christians who considered Revelation to be inspired from early times. The reading "tree of life" is the reading of Christians who initially did not consider those words to be inspired. Moreover, the Greek text of Revelation was corrupted early and extensively. Proof of this is given on this KJV Today article on Revelation 16:5 [CLICK HERE]. Revelation 22:19 may well be one of these early corruptions that were never corrected in the Greek speaking Church.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/book-o...-Textus-Receptus-is-Accurate-at-Revelation-22

 

[TCassidy]

But we all know that the Latin versions preserved the original words, not the Greek.

I hope that was sarcasm.

There are 230 Greek manuscripts of Revelation including Codex Sinaiticus (325 to 350 AD).

P47 dates to 200-250 AD.

There are fragmentary quotations in the writings of the Patristics dating to 125-175 AD.

P18, p85, and p24 date to around 300 AD.

As far as canonicity is concerned, neither the Church of Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches established the canon. The canon was established by the local churches as early as 120 AD.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Bro. Tom, you made mention of the TR. I heard Dr. James White say it was filled with errors. What do you say about that?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are right! I should have said - only the originals contain perfect infallibility.

e.g.

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

ASV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Which is the infallible word of God.
Of course we both know about the 30-40 page debate presented by Burgon as to why it should be theos and not hos.

Trinitarians say its theos.
JW's say its hos.

Which presents the infallible truth?
It can't be both.

HankD

Unquestionably the Majority Text is correct as per the KJV. Only a tiny number of MSS have hos (about 3% if memory serves). Codex Vaticanus does not have 1 Timothy, so the support for the Critical Text is even smaller than usual.

However, TCassidy is quite correct that the text supports the Divinity of Christ whichever text you use.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'm

Sorry, but Revelation 21:19 reads "And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;"

The Greek for Revelation 21:19 reads οἱ θεμέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιμίῳ κεκοσμημένοι· ὁ θεμέλιος ὁ πρῶτος ἴασπις, ὁ δεύτερος σάπφιρος, ὁ τρίτος χαλκηδών, ὁ τέταρτος σμάραγδος,

Now, if you mean Revelation 22:19 then it reads καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας, τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ.

But the TR reads και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω

The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV reading is based, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When Erasmus compiled his Greek NT he had access to no Greek mss for the last six verses of Revelation (the last page of his manuscript was missing). So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek mss. The most notorious of these is this reading. The reading “the tree” of life is found in all Greek mss, and is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin mss; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators.

If you would do a little study you would see the following: Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

And the context of Revelation chapter 22 is even more interesting. Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

And Revelation 22:14 tells us we are talking about a tree, not a book.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

You see, Jordan, according to the bible in Revelation 2:7 it is the Tree of Life that gives life. Not a book. All the book does is record who has eternal life and who does not.

If you want to stick with "book" fine, but you are saying that God either did not preserve his word from 100 AD until 1525, or that He is too stupid to know the difference between "tree" and "book."

Tell you want. Look up the text-critical evidence for the "tree" reading and the text critical evidence for the "book" reading. See for yourself that "book" is the result of a mistake by Erasmus and has no manuscript support at all. God said "tree." The context of Revelation 22 says "tree." The inspired reading is "tree."

so you would claim that it would be an error then? Your contradicting yourself now, earlier you implied all texts are infallible and have no errors of fact. Which one is it?

 

[Internet Theologian]

I, of course, believe in the infallibility of the Word of God though I am not obligated nor ensnared to any sect that worships a version of Scripture. I use several versions and I get some of the translational differences between differing versions and it doesn't effect my faith at all. I love the many different versions of Scriptures, though not all of them.

I just watched a video of Andy Stanley...

Nope, he doesn't place much value at all in Scripture and denies both infallibility and sufficiency. In fact he mitigates it in front of laughing members of his club. I'd say unbelievable but after so much it simply isn't unbelievable any longer.

 

[HankD]

Theos.

Actually, it can without changing the meaning of the passage. "He" was manifest in flesh. Who is "He?" Verse 15 makes it clear it is "God." And even verse 16 makes it clear by addressing "Godliness." So, even if you change "God" to "He" the antecedent of "He" would still be "God."

Agreed, Theos represents the infallible truth.

It is part of the Grk. theta abbreviation for God. Burgon said that you could use a strong light (presumably behind the "page" of the manuscript) and see the cross bar.

Did he use a candle? probably not a flashlight

Any Arian worth his salt will claim "he" disproves that God was manifest in the flesh (of course it makes the claimant an antichrist).

But I agree with your exposition as well.
I see you didn't take the upper case "H" bait.


HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Bro. Tom, you made mention of the TR. I heard Dr. James White say it was filled with errors. What do you say about that?

It is not "filled" with errors. But it does have some variants. 17 of them are obvious from Erasmus translating the Latin Vulgate into Greek because his manuscript of Revelation (Codex 1r) was missing its last page. And even his misspelling of "tree" (ligno) to cause it to read "book" (libro), probably due to ageing eyesight and lack of quality light in the environment in which he was working, is not sufficient to cause me any alarm. The TR is still a reliable example of the Byzantine Textform without error of fact. (Even the ligno/libro variant doesn't bother me for, if a person was not given access to the tree of life his name would not be in the Lamb's Book of Life.)

The TR was the sole Greek bible in use by the churches from the time of Erasmus (16th century) until the mid 19th century when the first representatives of the Alexandrian Textform were published. And prior to Erasmus, the text of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) used a form of the "Text Commonly Received By All" (or "Textus Receptus" in Latin) since the beginning of the schism with Rome, which began in the early 4th century and reached fruition in the 11th century (the Great Schism of 1054).

So, contrary to popular opinion, the TR did not originate with Erasmus, but even Wescott and Hort said that "Erasmus simply passed along the text in common use for over 1000 years" (or words to that effect). However, it must be pointed out that the text we now call the TR has been frozen in time to reflect the work of Erasmus and his successors (especially Scrivener and his GNT of 1894) to the detriment of accuracy and fidelity to the Byzantine/Majority text, and has been almost "canonized" by many TR Only folks and organizations (the Trinitarian Bible Society) which ought to know better.

I prefer my Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine New Testament Text (2005 edition) but in its absence I will still use the Scrivener TR.