Did the word of God exist in 1610? Of course it did. So even you admit that even though in 1610 there was no perfect translation, no perfect Greek text, no original manuscripts, but the word of God was here and used by believers.
-
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 you see A Difference between Inerrancy/Infallibility?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Did the word of God exist in 1610? Of course it did. So even you admit that even though in 1610 there was no perfect translation, no perfect Greek text, no original manuscripts, but the word of God was here and used by believers.
Read my entire post:
This argument will go on until the Lord returns, but truly, all anyone is posting are their OPINIONS, or the OPINIONS of other people. Each side claiming "my sources are right, your sources are wrong". Since no one has the originals, no one can claim their posts as FACT. Personally, I trust in the Lord to protect His Word and will continue to trust and use the KJV.
I believe there ARE still the pure Words of God today.
I cannot believe that God thought it so important as to INSPIRE the writers of Scripture to put down EXACTLY what He wanted us to know, and then, after He was that precise about what He wanted written, just turn His back, and let it become corrupted!! Yet that's what many of you claim, so I have to ask you then, why in the world did He even bother in the first place? And, NO, I don't believe we "have parts of God's Word in all good translations"! That's a ridiculous statement! Yes, there are corrupt manuscripts today. There are different sets of manuscripts that do not agree with each other. I believe ONE of them is right. Both of them CANNOT be. That's illogical.
Let's see, your Bible has "this" passage, mine doesn't have "this" passage........... OK, is that passage Scripture, or not?............. And if that isn't Scripture, well, how do I know that ANY of it is Scripture? ...............Maybe some of those passages that are in BOTH our Bibles aren't supposed to be there either!.................. Maybe BOTH translations got it wrong!!....................... We don't have the originals, how do we know?
That's a mighty slippery slope to be stepping out onto. I'll put my trust in the KJV. I truly believe this flood of Bible translations, most of them different from the other, does FAR MORE damage to the body of Christ than any KJVO belief ever has because it raises DOUBT about what is, and what is not, actually the Word of God! That leads to doubting the entire Bible! I HAVE seen that happen, while I've NOT seen the KJVO stand cause the "divisions" everyone claims.
I don't believe you are not a Christian if you don't use the KJV. I don't believe you cannot be saved unless you were saved from the KJV. I don't believe you should be forced, ridiculed, kicked out of your church, etc., for not using the KJV. I just believe the KJV is the best Bible version to use.
I can only add................AMEN!! :applause:
Well, the King James translators knew where the texts were, how else could they have translated the scriptures?
I don't know what you are trying to say here, you are agreeing with me.
There have always been corrupt or false manuscripts going back to the earliest days of the church. And there have been ways to verify what was scripture and what was false. It was the same in 1611, the translators rejected much false scripture. They had many careful tests to determine what was scripture and what was not.
And it is the same today. We have God's preserved word, and we have corrupt texts, just like 300 A.D., and just like in 1611 A.D..
You guys kill me, you search for the most miniscule supposed error in the KJB and come up with tiny lists that are mostly obvious typos. But then you completely overlook that the Sinaticus and Vaticanus disagreed with each other thousands of times in the four gospels alone.
What a joke.
so do I and everyone else here.
First, no translation is based off of one manuscript. Second, no two manuscripts are alike. All translations, including that of the KJV comes from multiple conflicting manuscripts. So all manuscripts have some sort of "corruption" or error today. This however doesn't make much of a difference as we can compare manuscripts and know what was originally said.
straw man and also that even the KJV translators would disagree with. First of all, 99% was are 100% sure about. The small percent(like Luke 17:36 for example) we may have different opinions over if it's original or not. The KJV translators included it, but put a note showing it's lack in manuscript support. Just because we may have questions over Luke 17:36 doesn't mean we have to doubt Luke 17:37 which doesn't have any doubts.
It cause divisions all the time. Like you and winman and on the KJVO side, and others are on the non kjv side. Divisions. Churches split over this issue. No one doubts the entire Bible because of multiple translations. Another straw man. Now, I believe we do have too man, but how can an abundance of translations cause me a problem. Of your main translations, there are no doctrinal differences whatsoever. The differences are either translational (which you would figure would be there) and textual. None change any doctrine.
I have no problem with this at all, well stated. I would add too that you shouldn't be forced, ridiculed, kicked out of your church for using a KJV. It's a very good translation.
I am like you, I believe God wants us to know his word, therefore he is going to preserve it, and he is not going to hide it from us. We have two texts, the KJB from the Received Text, or the MVs from the Critical Text, I believe the KJB from the Received Text is the preserved text God promised us.
I think it is comical how the supporters of the MVs blame folks who use the KJB for division. Before 1881 there was no division because everyone used the KJB! It is the MVs that introduced debate and division into the church.
Now that is obvious, but they will deny the obvious. Bunch of hypocrites.
These folks that use the MVs don't believe anything, they think all versions are corrupt and full of errors.
Why is it that only the King James folks have faith that God preserved his word?
Well, they didn't really have a handful of careful tests. They didn't have that many manuscripts and most of their work was with the Greek text that they had.
But I believe you missed my point. We said that only the original manuscripts are inerrant. You said if that were true, then "the word of God no longer exists." So, I asked you if the word of God existed in 1610? So the word of God can exist without having the original manuscripts and not having a perfect translation or perfect text.
they are manuscripts, just like all manuscripts disagree with each other.
If Yeshua1 is correct and only the originals are inerrant, then the word of God did not exist in 1611 A.D.. In fact, the word of God did not exist when Jesus read from Isaiah when he was in Nazareth, as Jesus was reading from a copy, not the originals. No person had Moses writings, everyone used copies that had been handed down for thousands of years. Jesus believed these copies, and said the scripture cannot be broken.
Oh, there are tons of corrupt manuscripts out there, I call them the MVs.
Look, when someone says only the originals were inerrant, what they are really saying is that the word of God has not been preserved and that all scripture we have now is corrupt and cannot be trusted. There is not one original piece of scripture that was written directly by one of the prophets or apostles in existence.
It is a clever way of casting complete doubt on the word of God, while giving the false impression that you really believe and trust that God has preserved and given us his word.
The devil could not have framed a better lie.
winman, it's one thing to believe something, it's another thing to just outright lie. You know this isn't true. I believe God preserved his word. I don't doubt it at all. To say that I nor anyone here doesn't believe that, is to spread something falsely.
As a believer winman, you should not "Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his deeds;"
Was the Bible inerrant in 1610 according to you?
Of course it was, else the King James translators could not have translated an inerrant translation.
But everything they had was a copy, I doubt they had even a single original manuscript.
And there were many corrupt and false manuscripts that they considered and rejected. You need to do a study on how they did this translation. It has been many years, but I read a very informative book on it years ago, and they had many tests to determine what was scripture and what was not. They did not have just a few simple tests.
And they did not have just a few texts either, they had many, including many in other languages.
Once again, you guys nit-pick to find the most miniscule mistake in the KJB, and overlook the THOUSANDS of differences between the Sinaticus and Vaticanus in the four gospels alone. What a complete joke and the height of hypocrisy!
And you want to compare the Critical Text to the Received Text and KJB? What a laugh!
Ok, so the Bible was inerrant in 1610. I agree with you.
Was there a perfect text, manuscript or translation in 1610?
I have done a study on how the KJV translators made their translation. I have read every book that is available about the making of the KJV and our English Bible, including several old books from the 1700's and 1800's. I have read what writings of the KJV translators themselves that I can find.
I know of no book where the KJV translators listed tests or prnciples to determine which various readings were Scripture.
Perhaps you are thinking of the rules that were given the translators for their translating process. Those rules were not tests to determine what was scripture and what was not. In the 1611, the KJV translators did not even make any real clear pronouncements about whether the Apocrphya was Scripture. In contrast, some of the pre-1611 English Bibles had clear pronouncements that the Apocrphya books were not Scripture.
On the next page after the heading, "the order how the rest of holy Scriptures (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read," there are readings that include sections from the Apocrpha.
imperfect sources of the KJV
One serious problem for your wishful unproven KJV-only opinions or speculations is the fact that you nor any other KJV-only advocate cannot name or identify any inerrant original language manuscript or any inerrant printed edition of the original language texts from which you can claim that the KJV 100% followed in translating or any inerrant translation of which the KJV was a revision. You cannot name a perfect, inerrant source used by the KJV translators that the KJV agrees with 100%.
Since you cannot name any one perfect inerrant Old Testament text and any one perfect inerrant New Testament text that the KJV translators followed 100%, are you saying that your claim that the KJV being inerrant fails?
The printed editions of the original language texts used by the KJV translators had some printing errors and were based on manuscripts that had some copying errors. Sometimes the copying errors in the manuscripts had been followed in the printed editions. The KJV translators are not known to have done much consulting or collating of original language manuscripts if any, but instead they relied upon the imperfect printed editions that they had. The KJV translators likely did not know that they followed a textual conjecture in their printed New Testament text that was not found in any known Greek manuscript.
Yes, the KJV translators consulted many texts, including texts that were very textually different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the varying Textus Receptus editions. The KJV translators were sometimes influenced by the textually different Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, etc.. The KJV translators even borrowed English renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the textually different Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators sometimes followed the textual marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the reading in the text.
One of the Textus Receptus editions that the KJV translators used was the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus. This edition was based on Erasmus's earlier editions along with an imperfect collation of 15 Greek manuscripts and the printed Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of Catholic Cardinal Ximenes. There were over 2,000 textual variants listed in the margin of this Textus Receptus, and those textual marginal notes are incomplete and sometimes inaccurate.
KJV defender Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Actually his eighteen year old son is the one who was supposed to have collated and compared the 15 Greek manuscripts.
The KJV was actually more of a revision [a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles] than it was an original new translation of the original language texts.
Winman, do you claim that any of the pre-1611 English Bibles which the KJV translators accepted as being the word of God in English were inerrant?
If these earlier Bibles were the Word of God in English as the KJV translators asserted, did they cease to be the Word of God after they were revised or updated?
According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities that were not present in them? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inerrancy or inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inerrancy or inspiration? Can the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can imperfection, impurity, or corruption inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption?
Originally Posted by jbh28
Was the Bible inerrant in 1610 according to you?
Of course it was, else the King James translators could not have translated an inerrant translation.
But everything they had was a copy, I doubt they had even a single original manuscript.
And there were many corrupt and false manuscripts that they considered and rejected.
And they did not have just a few texts either, they had many, including many in other languages.
One serious problem for your wishful unproven KJV-only opinions or speculations is the fact that you nor any other KJV-only advocate cannot name or identify any inerrant original language manuscript or any inerrant printed edition of the original language texts from which you can claim that the KJV 100% followed in translating or any inerrant translation of which the KJV was a revision. You cannot name a perfect, inerrant source used by the KJV translators that the KJV agrees with 100%.
Since you cannot name any one perfect inerrant Old Testament text and any one perfect inerrant New Testament text that the KJV translators followed 100%, are you saying that your claim that the KJV being inerrant fails?
The printed editions of the original language texts used by the KJV translators had some printing errors and were based on manuscripts that had some copying errors. Sometimes the copying errors in the manuscripts had been followed in the printed editions. The KJV translators are not known to have done much consulting or collating of original language manuscripts if any, but instead they relied upon the imperfect printed editions that they had. The KJV translators likely did not know that they followed a textual conjecture in their printed New Testament text that was not found in any known Greek manuscript.
Yes, the KJV translators consulted many texts, including texts that were very textually different from the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the varying Textus Receptus editions. The KJV translators were sometimes influenced by the textually different Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, etc.. The KJV translators even borrowed English renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the textually different Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators sometimes followed the textual marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the reading in the text.
One of the Textus Receptus editions that the KJV translators used was the 1550 edition of Robert Stephanus. This edition was based on Erasmus's earlier editions along with an imperfect collation of 15 Greek manuscripts and the printed Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of Catholic Cardinal Ximenes. There were over 2,000 textual variants listed in the margin of this Textus Receptus, and those textual marginal notes are incomplete and sometimes inaccurate.
KJV defender Edward Hills observed that Stephanus "placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts, which he indicated by Greek numbers" (KJV Defended, p. 117). F. H. A. Scrivener indicated that Stephanus in his preface stated that his sources were sixteen, but that includes the printed Complutensian as one of them (Introduction, II, p. 189). Tregelles confirmed that “the various readings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition and from fifteen MSS” (Account, p. 30). Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Actually his eighteen year old son is the one who was supposed to have collated and compared the 15 Greek manuscripts.
The KJV was actually more of a revision [a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles] than it was an original new translation of the original language texts.
Winman, do you claim that any of the pre-1611 English Bibles which the KJV translators accepted as being the word of God in English were inerrant?
If these earlier Bibles were the Word of God in English as the KJV translators asserted, did they cease to be the Word of God after they were revised or updated?
According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities that were not present in them? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inerrancy or inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inerrancy or inspiration? Can the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can imperfection, impurity, or corruption inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption?
Was slippery slope foundation of the KJV?
You ignore the facts, and in effect you depend upon divers measures or weights.
The printed original language texts that were the foundation underlying the KJV had differences in whole verses because the manuscripts on which the printed text were based also had such differences.
The 1525 edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayim and printed by Daniel Bomberg did not have three verses in its text that are found in the KJV [Joshua 21:36-37, Neh. 7:68]. The KJV translators made use of other textually different sources such as the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. Some of the printed Greek New Testament texts on which the KJV was based also did not have some whole verses found in the KJV. The Complutensian Polyglot NT Greek text does not have Acts 8:37. The first edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus did not have 1 John 5:7, Luke 17:36, Mark 11:26, most or all of Revelation 21:26, half of 1 John 2:23, and some other whole phrases or clauses [Mark 15:3c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, Revelation 18:23a]. The third edition of Erasmus added 1 John 5:7, but not all the other whole verses or other clauses or phrases. Some or all the Textus Receptus editions by Stephanus did not have Luke 17:36 and some clauses and phrases.
Based on those earlier editions of the Textus Receptus, several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision also did not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Revelation 21:26, and some of the clauses or phrases. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.
Baptist4life, according to a consistent application of your own faulty reasoning, you in effect make the original language texts from which the KJV was translated and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision into a supposed "slippery slope."
You ignore the facts, and in effect you depend upon divers measures or weights.
The printed original language texts that were the foundation underlying the KJV had differences in whole verses because the manuscripts on which the printed text were based also had such differences.
The 1525 edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayim and printed by Daniel Bomberg did not have three verses in its text that are found in the KJV [Joshua 21:36-37, Neh. 7:68]. The KJV translators made use of other textually different sources such as the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. Some of the printed Greek New Testament texts on which the KJV was based also did not have some whole verses found in the KJV. The Complutensian Polyglot NT Greek text does not have Acts 8:37. The first edition of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus did not have 1 John 5:7, Luke 17:36, Mark 11:26, most or all of Revelation 21:26, half of 1 John 2:23, and some other whole phrases or clauses [Mark 15:3c, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, Revelation 18:23a]. The third edition of Erasmus added 1 John 5:7, but not all the other whole verses or other clauses or phrases. Some or all the Textus Receptus editions by Stephanus did not have Luke 17:36 and some clauses and phrases.
Based on those earlier editions of the Textus Receptus, several of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision also did not have Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, Revelation 21:26, and some of the clauses or phrases. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.
Baptist4life, according to a consistent application of your own faulty reasoning, you in effect make the original language texts from which the KJV was translated and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision into a supposed "slippery slope."
No, rather its that we are saying that we don't have, nor even need a "perfect" translation in order to have to us the infallible word of God to us today!
For the mistakes are explainable, due to copying mistakes, insertions, dubious variants taken etc but do NOT make it NOT the word of God!
Its infallible, but only the ONE who it points to and it came from is "perfect!"[/quote]
Excellent arguments. I look forward to the response.
Again a well-reasoned argument. Thank you for sharing the fruit of your studies.
My response would be that I do not know enough about this specific topic to respond. That does not mean that Logos is correct or incorrect, it means I cannot tell.
As I stated in an earlier post, this is the problem with "scholarship". If Logos or another poster would argue "the Greek says this or that" I cannot tell, not knowing Greek. So I have no way to know if your argument is correct or not if it is made from the Greek. You need to put your argument to another scholar who knows the Greek to have a meaningful debate.
I did note that Logos spoke of "KJV defender Edward Hills". This fellow was familiar with Logos argument, and yet defended the KJB.
And this is what I observed many years ago when I did a study to determine which if any of the versions of the Bible was the inerrant word of God. I noticed that there were good arguments FOR and AGAINST the KJB (and the other versions). What was clear to me is that all these "scholarly" arguments would never provide an answer. In the end I had to believe by faith, and I believe the KJB is the preserved and inerrant word of God.
How did this happen exactly? I cannot tell you, I believe it was a work of God. I believe that history itself argues for this, the King James became the dominant version of scripture just as England became the first "global" superpower, taking the word of God to nearly every nation and continent on the globe. Many millions of people were saved under the preaching of the King James Bible, and all of the great revivals.
I can't explain it, but I can see it.
If you want to spend your entire life devoted to attacking the KJB, that is your right, I consider it a waste of time. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people believe it is the word of God, and many more will believe that in the future. The MVs cannot claim a following like this, that ought to make you pause and think.
Edward F. Hills did not claim perfection or inerrancy for the KJV. He acknowledged that there were at least a few errors in the KJV.
My argument is the same argument as that asserted by the KJV translators: that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and authority for the making and trying of all translations.
Do you really think that Edward F. Hills would argue against the view of Bible translations held by the KJV translators which is the view that I have also advocated?
The KJV translators rejected the arguments for a one-perfection-translation view in their day [the Latin Vulgate-only theory], and their preface demonstrates that they indicated that no translation, which would include their own, would be perfect.
Winman, disagreeing with your opinions or some other KJV-only advocate's opinions is not attacking the KJV. To try to claim that it is is wrong. Your claims and arguments have been answered.
Since you show that you are unable to answer the sound evidence presented, your response seems to be to try to attack me personally. You improperly and wrongly questioned my faith in God and in the Scriptures.
My stand is for the Scriptures and what they actually teach. My stand is for consistent truth that would be true both before and after 1611 and that would be true for all believers, not just those who speak English.
You consider my stand for the truth to be "a waste of time", but that does not mean that it.
Winman, you are uninformed and misinformed. You end up opposing established facts of history.
Your KJV-only claims rest on no sound, solid foundation. You cannot show that the Scriptures teach your KJV-only opinions or claims.