Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Their faith is in a man-made false doctrine and incidentally in 16th and 17th century non-modern scholars... a Catholic and a group of Anglo-catholics (Church of England). These same people that KJVO's place on a pedestal HATED Baptists and our doctrines
--------------------------------------------------

First of all Scott, what you are claiming is doctrine, is not docrtine at all, but faith in the preservation of God's word that he providentially has provided for all of us speaking in the english language and proclaiming it. If I am guilty of believing a doctrine in this matter, let it be known it is this: the preservation of the scriptures. This is found in the scriptures, so if it be called a doctrine, so be it.

Secondly, you like to continually mention that the KJV translators were catholics, which they were not, they were Anglicans from the Church of England who had no personal part whatsovever that has ever been given in historical accounts that they personally hated anyone.

Thirdly, it is funny you mention the KJV tranlsators as being Anglican, because Westcott and Hort were not only Anglican, but liberal and modernists of their time. They included a Unitarian named Smith who denied the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ to take part in their works and refused to do this work, when many rejected this man's involvement, unless they allowed him to take part. All I can say, is by their fruits you shall know them. These men were part of secret societies, involved in the occult, revered the father of modernism, and german rationalism, believed in evolution, and the list goes on and on. Not only this, but the United Bible Societies have on their staff a Roman Catholic Carlo Martini! So please, look to the roots of the tree, and the fruits that it produced - Can a corrupt tree bringeth forth good fruit? Please also show me where great revivals ever came out of the modern versions based upon these texts that these men were responsible for? The only thing I have observed is an increase in the charismatic revivals which are apostate, and not genuine revivals. God's blessings do not seem to be upon these versions.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Scott J · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Askjo, rather than post links, just choose one or two salient examples. Larry gave 250 that show BETTER English translation from the same TR-type text (there IS no TR, we all understand - no one Greek document that is "it").
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bob,

With all due respect, this is your opinion, not fact. Also remember, God is not the author of confusion, nor can God lie.

Michelle, it is an act of lying to one's self to ignore the truth because it conflicts with your preconceived opinion.

Larry quoted references and reasons why in these places the NKJV translates the TR better than the KJV. If you can refute his claims then do. But to simply ignore them and close your mind to all possibility that he is correct in even a few of the citations is nothing less than self-deception and willful ignorance.

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They can see, and admit and proclaim that God's word is the truth, and that he has done what he promised to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of us on this side of the debate do this... where we separate from you is that we don't add our own imaginings or demands to what God has promised and done.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

No, this is not so. Those who stand for and condone the modern versions based upon the Alexandrian family of mss, and the theories and methods of W/H are yolking themselves with those who walk disorderly and taking part in their evil deeds. This is clearly denying the verbal inspiration of the Bible, and the providential preservation of the scriptures by God Almighty himself. It is a clear denial of these things, by virtue of condoning the versions based upon those things and people who deny/denied them.

You do add to and imagine and demand what God has done and will do concerning this issue, by condoning those versions that have clearly denied what God has preserved already, and provided for you already. You stand for those versions, and those people who were/are responsible for introducing doubt about what God has said, and what he has done already.

When will it end? Please tell me, if they find more older mss from archeologists, and the majority of the book of Mark is not included, based upon the theories and methods that have been applied to the underlying texts of the modern versions, what then will they do? I do not mean to hurt you in any way when I say this, but you might want to make very sure, you are standing on the right/Godly side in your position concerning this matter. Many here are showing no fear or trembling whatsoever toward God's holy and perfect words of truth. None! You are going to stand one day, and give an account for what you were given, and you might want to make sure you are standing in humbleness and fear of the very words of God that will judge you in that time and that he holds above even His own name.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Larry quoted references and reasons why in these places the NKJV translates the TR better than the KJV. If you can refute his claims then do. But to simply ignore them and close your mind to all possibility that he is correct in even a few of the citations is nothing less than self-deception and willful ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

Larry is not a scholar, nor can he even be compared to the working knowledge of languages that the KJV translators had, so his post means absolutely nothing to me, but his OWN OPINION. Just as reflected in the above quote of yours regarding what he showed to be "better" than the KJV is your OWN OPINION.

I am not open or open minded to deceptions, and vain babblings, and the OPINIONS of men who are guilty of wresting the scriptures. If the blind lead the blind, they both fall into the ditch. Be as wise as serpents, but as harmless as doves. I ask and rely upon discernment of the Holy Spirit of truth who leads me to all truth, and my final authority are the scriptures themselves, that God has wonderfully and faithfully preserved and provided for me and for generations of believers. If this is foolishness and ignorant to you, so be it. I only care that I am in the will and truth of my Lord Jesus Christ, and not that of men. Let God be my judge, and let him also be my guide.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Many don't want the Bible in a form that modern readers can readily study... reminds me of the Catholic church with its Latin Vulgate Only stance as well as those who would "hold (or suppress as the NKJV/NASB accurately say) the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).
--------------------------------------------------

Well, if this is true Scott, how can I, as you indicated I am an ignoramus, and unwilling to understand, and open my mind, understand the KJV? If it is so difficult for people of today to understand it, and study it, how can I then understand it? How can you compare this to what the Roman Catholic church did? The Roman Church wanted to "keep" the people from reading/hearing/learning God's words of truth to subject the common people to the Papal and church authority. This is exactly what the modern versions have done, but in a more subtle way. They instead make one doubt, what God has actually said, and preserved and keep the common people subject to the authority of the modern day scholars, and in effect make the common man wrest and judge the scriptures. If this is not keeping the truth from people in a subtle way, I don't know what is. I stand for the postition that every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God being preserved and available and to be believed 100%, rather than excusing away all the additions/omittions and subtle changes that have been done to God's holy and pure words of truth for the english speaking people. Can you say the same of yourself?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

LarryN · Apr 14, 2004

Larry is not a scholar, nor can he even be compared to the working knowledge of languages that the KJV translators had, so his post means absolutely nothing to me, but his OWN OPINION.

Michelle, you've missed the point of my post. I'm not the one who did the research- I was simply posting the research of Gary Hudson, who did the research. I guess you missed the byline near the top of the post.

In my last post I showed you with 19 verse references from the KJV itself that your charge of "the Christ" being a new-ageism in MV's is foolish- now can you provide me with the single reference that I keep requesting from you? All I see in your posts are emotionalistic appeals, but I have yet to see the subtance (chapters & verses) that I keep repeatedly requesting.

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
In human terms, the KJV became the standard in English because the Church of England used the force of law to get rid of its competitors. If you have an official church then it only makes sense to have an official (authorized) version... or so the thinking went. The same state-church union that our Baptists forebearers fought/resisted from the 1600's through the American Revolution is the one that made the Baptist Bible of choice, the Geneva, illegal in the 1630's.
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

If this is really true, then how come the Geneva Bible was phased out in this country? Please tell me, that the majority of bible believing christians in this country from it's inception to this day, chose the Geneva Bible, over that of the KJV? Please explain to me, why King James VI and I was petitioned by 1000 puritans for a revision that was more accurate to the texts, if this was an act done by the church? This was what the PEOPLE wanted, not the church authorities, as some would have you to believe.

The fact remains, that the recieved text, and the bibles that came from it, were stained with the blood of martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the critical greek text. The recieved text brought many genuine revivals, to which the critical greek text was gathering dust in the Vatican and monastery shelves and ultimately to the waste basket during this time of the great reformation. Not only this, but it has been known that when scribes would copy a text, they would burn the origional. Why would they make copies? Because the origionals had been worn out due to it's USE. This cannot be said of the Alexandrian family of mss, for they were origional copies dated to their origional writings which have evidenced alterations, to which shows they were not used enouph to even be copied. These were not preserved by God Almighty, but put away and kept out of the churches, only until this modern day generation.

What good is the promise of preservation, if it is not used and known and believed by God's people? What benefit would it be then? God is not mocked. To believe such a thing, is mocking God and denying his power and providence over his very words to us, meant for us.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
In my last post I showed you with 19 verse references from the KJV itself that your charge of "the Christ" being a new-ageism in MV's is foolish- now can you provide me with the single reference that I keep requesting from you? All I see in your posts are emotionalistic appeals, but I have yet to see the subtance (chapters & verses) that I keep repeatedly requesting.
--------------------------------------------------

I had posted some of the changes that have come from these modern versions, to which you ignored, and there are many more. I think that some of these things might be better explained by those who have seen these changes and I refer you/others to these links: (to which I came across as of yesturday to which explains all I have understood, but in a much better way)

Bible Versions and the Unity of the Church
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&sermonID=31701135150

A blast against the NIV
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&sermonID=02603122659

Version Errors on Salvation
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?ID=2200121740

What's wrong with the ESV?
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&sermonID=1060315021

It might be good to know, that out of two or three witnesses, the thing shall be established. These things are not being said and understood by just the KJVO crowd such as Ruckman and Riplinger, and those of the extremist viewpoint, but just because their extemist views are wrong, doesn't mean that the truth regarding this issue is wrong. The devil wants to confuse you and keep you from the truth.

Here is also a link to some of the heresies of Westcott and Hort

www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlistr/wh/wh10.htm.

You all will not listen to anything, anyone has to say on this side, and reject everything outright based upon your opinions of these men themselves, rather than rejecting the information they provide. How can one reason in this manner, and with such an attitude, and then call me close-minded. Really listen to the things these people are saying and informing of, and forget the labels you place upon them for once. You yourselves, might learn something.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

LarryN · Apr 14, 2004

I had posted some of the changes that have come from these modern versions, to which you ignored....

????????????????? - I've seen you keep refering to unspecified changes, but I don't recall ever seeing you provide any specific examples.

If I've missed them, please accept my apologies.

Would you be kind enough to provide a link or two to these earlier posts of yours that provide the specifics?

skanwmatos · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
To answer your/this question: the fact that he preserved it for the english speaking people for generations.

Simply untrue. The TR championed by the KJVOs did not exist until 1894 when Scrivener produced it by means of editorial compilation.

Oh, and in an earlier post you demeaned Larry for not being a language scholar in either Greek or English. There seems to be a lot of that going around. You seem unaware of the fact that the word "English" is a proper noun and requires capitalization.

Scott J · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:

In human terms, the KJV became the standard in English because the Church of England used the force of law to get rid of its competitors. If you have an official church then it only makes sense to have an official (authorized) version... or so the thinking went. The same state-church union that our Baptists forebearers fought/resisted from the 1600's through the American Revolution is the one that made the Baptist Bible of choice, the Geneva, illegal in the 1630's.
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

If this is really true,

It is a historical fact and therefore there is no "if"... it is true.

then how come the Geneva Bible was phased out in this country?

Because for over 130 years after the Geneva was declared illegal "this country" was a group of British colonies... subject to both the monarchy and the state church.

Baptists in America were persecuted and imprisoned for attempting to practice their religion without the permission of the Anglican church.

Please tell me, that the majority of bible believing christians in this country from it's inception to this day, chose the Geneva Bible, over that of the KJV?

No. The first settlers brought the Geneva but it couldn't be printed legally anywhere in the British Empire after 1637. Therefore it was replaced by the KJV by default... not by the choice of the users. The Baptists of the 1600's widely condemned the KJV as being a biased state version.

Please explain to me, why King James VI and I was petitioned by 1000 puritans for a revision that was more accurate to the texts, if this was an act done by the church?

Puritans were a sect of the Church of England. They were reformers.

If 1000 Baptists requested that the US Gov't commission a new translation of the Bible that would become the standard, only legal version, would you submit that these Baptists represented you? Neither did many Puritans. In fact, when the Puritans hit the shores of America... they were carrying their Geneva Bibles.

This was what the PEOPLE wanted, not the church authorities, as some would have you to believe.

The PEOPLE had very limited choices which are really no choice at all. When only one Bible is legal to print, bind, or distribute in your country, you are left with choices. You can defy the law- which some did for awhile by importing Geneva Bibles illegally from Holland. You can stop using any Bible. Or you can hold your nose, learn to preach over the parts you believe were tainted by the "official church's" bias... and use what you have.

They did not have the choice of continuing to use the Geneva without violating the law.

The fact remains, that the recieved text, and the bibles that came from it, were stained with the blood of martyrs. This cannot be said regarding the critical greek text.

Au contraire. The 20th century saw more Christian martyrs than any other as well as more conversions to Christ. Most of the new foreign language Bibles during that century were from the CT, not the TR.

Further, by percentage, the early church endured more persecution than the church of the Reformation. And the early church, by the evidence we have, used a text different from the TR- whether Byzantine or Alexandrian.

The recieved text brought many genuine revivals,

As I stated, more people were won to Christ in the 20th century than any other. A greater percentage of the world's population were born again Christians in 2000 than in 1900. If you are going to argue that God approves what God uses then the CT and MV's clearly qualify as God-approved.

to which the critical greek text was gathering dust in the Vatican and monastery shelves and ultimately to the waste basket during this time of the great reformation.

Yes. The RCC withheld them. Perhaps they knew that their Latin Vulgate Only position (like your KJVO position) would be completely destroyed once people knew that the Bible of the Early Church Fathers was not the same as theirs.

Not only this, but it has been known that when scribes would copy a text, they would burn the origional.

My understanding is that this is what the Jews did to errant or worn out texts.

Do you have proof that NT copyists did the same? I am about 99% certain that you don't... because they didn't do it.

Why would they make copies? Because the origionals had been worn out due to it's USE. This cannot be said of the Alexandrian family of mss,

So if I happen to have a copy of the KJV in my home that we don't use... that makes it invalid? Your argument doesn't hold.

I gave a more legitimate answer. The RCC withheld texts from the public at large that would undermine the text of their tradition... which you now argue should be the text for all Christians... how very catholic of you.

for they were origional copies dated to their origional writings which have evidenced alterations,

I know many people who write in their Bibles. Beyond that, these "alterations" are sometimes margin notes and sometimes reflect an effort to reconcile one Bible with another that was thought to be superior.

to which shows they were not used enouph to even be copied.

Or else they were very carefully preserved and protected as exemplars for copies to be made from.

These were not preserved by God Almighty,

Really? Who says? You or God.

What you are proposing here is interesting though. You are claiming that the weren't preserved by God's providence... therefore, you must believe that someone over-ruled God and preserved them in spite of Him. Satan maybe? Nah, why would he preserve documents that affirm the accuracy of modern Bibles to include the KJV?

but put away and kept out of the churches, only until this modern day generation.

Put away and kept out of the churches by who? Answer: The Roman Catholic Church.

God is not mocked. To believe such a thing, is mocking God and denying his power and providence over his very words to us, meant for us.

Actually it is your persistence in putting words in the mouth of God that mocks Him. It is you that limits His power and providence to one 17th century Anglican version of the Bible.

We readily accept what God says and does. It is you that demands that He must have done what you wanted Him to do rather than what He did. The Pharisees missed Christ because God didn't give Him the way they expected. KJVO's miss the blessing of MV's clarity and accuracy because they are unwilling to accept the manner in which God has provided His Word. Sad.

skanwmatos · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
With all due respect, this is your opinion, not fact. Also remember, God is not the author of confusion, nor can God lie.

If you knew anything at all about the issue you would know it is a fact. There are at least 27 different Greek texts all know as "the" TR. The the present TR championed by KJVOs did not exist until Scrivener edited it together from bits and pieces in 1894.

And you are correct, God is not the author of your confusion, you are. You are ignorant of the facts and make things up as you go along.

God's word never mentions the TR. It never even says what language the bible was originally inspired in. It does not tell us which group of manuscripts are superior nor does it say one stream is preserved and the other is not.

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, if you really loved the truth you would hear us and abandon your false beliefs about the KJV. Note: I did not say abandon the KJV, that is a valid choice of a superior translation.

--------------------------------------------------

I love the truth, which is God's truth and every word of it, and to which I stand for. If "you" really loved the truth you would hear us, and abandon and reject the modern versions that only sow doubt and cause confusion, which are not of God, and rely upon the theories, methods and opinions of men, rather than faith in God's promises. You either believe God and what he has provided for you, or you believe men. I have chosen to believe God and have faith that he has fulfilled his promises regarding his words. You have rejected this wonderful truth, by your very condoning of/approval of those works of men who deny/denied this. WE are told to separate ourselves from them and their works, to which I am obeying. Are you?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

skanwmatos · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by Scott J: Regarding burning of exemplars:
My understanding is that this is what the Jews did to errant or worn out texts.

Do you have proof that NT copyists did the same? I am about 99% certain that you don't... because they didn't do it.

Even though I believe michelle is as ignorant as a new born puppy regarding this issue, I will still have to disagree with your position that the destruction of exemplars did not occur. Many of the best scholars and historians believe that is exactly what happened when the common manuscript was changed from the Uncial to the Minuscule.

There are about 2800 of these cursive manuscripts, and the overwhelming majority of these (90%) side with the Traditional text. The textual implication of this change of writing style has often been overlooked in the textual debate. Jakob van Braggen says: "It is assumed that after this transliteration process the majuscule was taken out of circulation.... The import of this datum has not been taken into account enough in the present New Testament textual criticism, for it implies, that just the oldest, best, and most customary manuscripts come to us in the new uniform (cursive style)." (From "The Ancient Text of the New Testament", pages 26, 27; as cited in "The Identity of the New Testament Text," Wilbur Pickering, Nelson Publishing Company, 1980, page 131.)

michelle · Apr 14, 2004

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
God's word never mentions the TR. It never even says what language the bible was originally inspired in. It does not tell us which group of manuscripts are superior nor does it say one stream is preserved and the other is not.
--------------------------------------------------

Skanw,

Then how can you ever be sure that you have God's very words? How can you rely upon and trust the scriptures for all matters of faith, practice and your very life? How then can you trust what God has revealed of himself and his will for you through his words, if he has not providentially preserved his words for you to know him? How can you then, believe God when he says that we should live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? How are you to be fully equipped against the fiery darts of the devil? How are you then kept from deception and lies? How is it that you can claim the doctrines you believe are the truth? How can you be fully equipped for sharing the gospel of Christ to those who are lost? How can you claim any of these things, if you are not sure that God could/would/has preserved his words for you and to which ones they are?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

skanwmatos · Apr 14, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
God's word never mentions the TR. It never even says what language the bible was originally inspired in. It does not tell us which group of manuscripts are superior nor does it say one stream is preserved and the other is not.
--------------------------------------------------

Skanw,

Then how can you ever be sure that you have God's very words?

Can you show me a verse of Scripture where God mentions the TR? Can you show me a verse of scripture where God says what language the NT was inspired in? Can you show me one verse of scripture in which God tells us which group of manuscripts are superior? Can you show me one verse of scripture where God tells us one stream is preserved and the other is not?

How can you rely upon and trust the scriptures for all matters of faith, practice and your very life?