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

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------

With all due respect and humbleness, I say to you, I can't prove to you something that one must believe by faith. This you must ask God about in prayer, to show you. I can only show you that the evidence of God's preservation of his words is what the churches believed, taught, understood, preached, lived for hundreds of years. This is the evidence, and this is the text that the churches had for centuries, not that of the Alexandrian family of mss which underlines the modern versions.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
How can you if you can't show me one verse of scripture which supports your false claim?
--------------------------------------------------

How can you prove that my claim is false? Is God's promise of preservation of his words, for every generation a false claim? I have scripture to support it. Where is your scripture to support that he wouldn't? Where is your evidence that he didn't, and if he didn't, are you now guilty of implying God is a liar?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


With all due respect and humbleness, I say to you, I can't prove to you something that one must believe by faith.

With all due respect and humility, I say to you, that I will not put my faith in something that is a) not declared in scripture, b) not consistent with the example of scripture, and c) violates scriptural principles for seeking and accepting the truth.

This you must ask God about in prayer, to show you.

I have. I have asked God to show me the truth on this issue... and He has progressively convicted me that KJVOnlyism is a false belief that threatens real fundamentalism in America.

I can only show you that the evidence of God's preservation of his words is what the churches believed, taught, understood, preached, lived for hundreds of years.

You haven't shown any evidence. You have given your opinions which have then been shown to be at odds with any honest consideration of the evidence.

This is the evidence, and this is the text that the churches had for centuries, not that of the Alexandrian family of mss which underlines the modern versions.

Speaking of avoiding main issues... the TR WAS NOT the text used by Christians for about 1400 years prior to Erasmus. His text had never existed before he created it therefore it is not a "preservation" of the "words" of God. If you are truly about the truth then deal with that.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


How can you prove that my claim is false?

Simply by stating the truth. We have over 5000 mss of the Greek NT. None of them are identical... and none of them are a word for word match to the TR. Therefore, the TR was not preserved... it was a new creation.

Is God's promise of preservation of his words, for every generation a false claim?

No. Your interpretation and application of God's promises are false. We accept the same promises... we simply reject your presumption to interpret those promises for us.

I have scripture to support it.

You have no scripture that says the sole manifestation of God's promise to preserve His Word would be the TR in Greek and the KJV in English.

Where is your scripture to support that he wouldn't?

We believe that He did preserve His Word therefore your question is a straw man.

are you now guilty of implying God is a liar?

No. But that would be the effect each and every time you choose to put words in God's mouth.

 

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
Though I can't remember the particulars, I know the Jews had rigid rules for the handling of texts. It is doubtful that such unanimity existed with the NT copyists.
--------------------------------------------------

I find this hard to believe that you believe such a thing, considering christians have been given much more and better things, than that of the jews, and that is the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in each individual believer. To imply and doubt, that christians would then take a much more liberal view of the very words of God, than the jews did, is denying this very precious truth. What more passion and love for the very words of God would those who have now a personal relationship with the Lord God himself through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of truth, to impart upon the believer?! How much more would they, ecspecially the early christians who were mostly jews, but even unto this day revere and love every word of God that he has given to us and ensure that they accurately copied it, and dealt with this issue in exactly the same manner!

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Though I can't remember the particulars, I know the Jews had rigid rules for the handling of texts. It is doubtful that such unanimity existed with the NT copyists.
--------------------------------------------------

I find this hard to believe that you believe such a thing, considering christians have been given much more and better things, than that of the jews, and that is the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in each individual believer.

Many of the Jews were OT believers. OTOH, many of the copies we now have, especially in the Byzantine tradition, came from eastern catholic scribes... who were quite possibly not true believers.

To imply and doubt, that christians would then take a much more liberal view of the very words of God, than the jews did, is denying this very precious truth.

Nope. Just a simple acceptance of fact. Christian communities and scribes were far more diverse than the Jewish scribes.

What more passion and love for the very words of God would those who have now a personal relationship with the Lord God himself through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of truth, to impart upon the believer?!

As stated, many of the scribes for the NT were not born again believers. Further, the guy you would place all this faith in, Erasmus (creator of the TR), didn't leave us a testimony that he accepted salvation by grace through faith alone. As far as we know, he died believing the RCC doctrines and methods for salvation.

How much more would they, ecspecially the early christians who were mostly jews, but even unto this day revere and love every word of God that he has given to us and ensure that they accurately copied it, and dealt with this issue in exactly the same manner!

Notably (and again an example of you avoiding the main issues) these early Jewish Christians used a text different from the TR. Both the Alexandrian and early Byzantine texts are in general shorter than the late Byzantine texts- of which the TR is a representative.

 

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
Speaking of avoiding main issues... the TR WAS NOT the text used by Christians for about 1400 years prior to Erasmus. His text had never existed before he created it therefore it is not a "preservation" of the "words" of God. If you are truly about the truth then deal with that.
--------------------------------------------------

If the TR was "NOT" the text used within the churches for centuries, then please tell me what was? Where did Erasmus get the information from, out of the thin blue sky? And why did God allow this for centuries to be believed, taught, lived, handed down, if it was not his word? Show me scriptures for your belief. And if he didn't, then please tell me how you then believe the preservation of the scriptures, and to what benefit it would be for God to preserve something that wasn't benefiting his people? If the Alexandrian family of mss was that used within the churches in every generation in oppistion to the TR, please provide me with the evidence of such a claim.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[LarryN]

I can't prove to you something that one must believe by faith.

And therein lies the problem. You can't show me from the Bible that your KJVO beliefs are correct. In contrast, the things that I DO believe by faith are stated by/have a basis in the Bible.

I believe in the Virgin Birth because Scripture states that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I believe that Christ arose from the grave because the Bible states so.

I believe that Jesus is going to return triumphantly to the Earth again in the future, to rule & reign- once again because the Bible says it will happen.

If these things were not declared in God's Word, how might we otherwise know them or on what basis should I believe them?

If you can't show me from the Bible that the KJV is the only acceptable translation of God's Word, then why should I give your claims any more credence than say, Joseph Smith's claim that an angel named Moroni gave him The Book of Mormon?

 

[michelle]

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


--------------------------------------------------
Notably (and again an example of you avoiding the main issues) these early Jewish Christians used a text different from the TR. Both the Alexandrian and early Byzantine texts are in general shorter than the late Byzantine texts- of which the TR is a representative.
--------------------------------------------------


You claim the early jewish christians used a different text different from the TR. Where is your proof? Is the Alexandrian family of mss your proof? Where then, if this be true, is there any evidence that the churches throughout the ages believed, taught, lived, handed down these shortened texts? It is not evident in the history of the churches. Only evident in the oldest manuscripts that were resurrected in the nineteenth century, some from a waste basket, and I am to believe this is God's preserved words? You can believe it, but I will not, and do not, as the evidence for the preservation of God's words are within the believing churches, which is the TR that underlines the KJV. Not only that, but the past 400 years of recent history attests to the blessings God has given upon this translation from the TR. By their fruits you shall know them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


If the TR was "NOT" the text used within the churches for centuries, then please tell me what was?

It somewhat depends on location. In the west, the Latin Vulgate was the most commonly available Bible and rebel translations were made directly from it. In the east, Greek remained dominate for a long while. Other translations and versions were used in other areas. The critical thing that destroys your contention is that all of the hand copied Bibles differed from one another- often significantly even within the Byzantine tradition.

Where did Erasmus get the information from, out of the thin blue sky?

From 6-10 late Greek mss, the Latin Vulgate, and memory. None of his sources were identical to each other. Only one of his Greek mss had any part of Revelation- and it was said to be imbedded in a commentary.

And why did God allow this for centuries to be believed, taught, lived, handed down, if it was not his word?

It was His Word. It wasn't His exact wording and in some cases the texts were not complete... especially as compared to our Bibles today.

Show me scriptures for your belief.

Prove all things, hold to that which is true.

Additionally, I use fair balances in my evaluation of historical facts... I don't contort them to make them agree with my presuppositions.

If the Alexandrian family of mss was that used within the churches in every generation in oppistion to the TR, please provide me with the evidence of such a claim.

The Alexandrian family was the Bible used by a significant portion of the early church (rightly or wrongly) for longer than the TR has been used during the post-reformation church. Were God's promises not valid for these early Christians as well?

My view can stand answer this question since I believe that the Word of God is in both families. Yours cannot. You can't say why your contention that God must be lying if the TR isn't the only acceptable text doesn't equally apply by making God a liar to the early Christians who used the Alexandrian type Bibles.

 

[michelle]

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


--------------------------------------------------
And therein lies the problem. You can't show me from the Bible that your KJVO beliefs are correct. In contrast, the things that I DO believe by faith are stated by/have a basis in the Bible.

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

You have not supported your beliefs with any scripture whatsoever, that God would allow his people to believe additions to his word for generations. You have not provided scriptures to indicate that God's words, and every one of them are not important. You have not supported scriptures for your belief that any ol translation will do. You have not provided any scriptures at all for your MVO position. Yes, it is an MVOnly positoion, because by virtue of your acceptance and approval of those very things that have altered God's pure words in this modern day, show to me, your disrespect for, and lack of fear of God's very words. You reject the very words of God that he preserved for you by accepting those that have taken them away, and caused doubt, and then turn around and claim that the KJV is also God's word? This is hypocracy, and it is unbiblical. We are not to add to, nor take away from God's words. And if one is walking disorderly, or bringing to you another gospel, another Christ, or another doctrine, you must separtate yourself from such. It is not only hypocritcal, but disobeying the word of God, on top of disrespecting and being ungreatful for what he has already done.

Where is your fear of God? Do you not tremble at his words? His very words, will be those that judge and will you be found a good and faithful servant?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Phillip]

Michelle,
I thought I posted this, but apparently it didn't take. Please go to my subject where I discuss the words and verses that are allegedly left out of MV's. If you will list them (just start with a few of the most important ones) then we can discuss those particular verses and words to see why they were either left out or added. (or they may even be words taken out of context that have simply been updated with modern words)

 

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
The Alexandrian family was the Bible used by a significant portion of the early church (rightly or wrongly) for longer than the TR has been used during the post-reformation church. Were God's promises not valid for these early Christians as well?

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

Scott,

I appreciate the efforts you made to explain yourself and your position of understanding. Thank you.

Yes, God's promises were valid then, however these prove they rejected it because of not only the noted alterations made to these texts, but the fact they don't even agree one with the other in most cases, and the apostacy that existed then of the gnostics, which is evident in the alterations that had been made to the texts. History shows that the TR was the text that the believing churches used, believed, lived, preached and handed down for centuries and that this was the words preserved by God from as far back as we can tell, until this very day. Either the TR is corrupt and from apostacy, or the Alexandrian family is. They both can't be the same, for they are not the same.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neither did God give us the name of the Son of God and Messiah as Jesus in his Old testament scritpures, now did he? So, how is it that many knew who he was? Was it by his name? How was it, and what did Jesus say to how one knew who he was?
Please use the scriptures, and then you also have my answer.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:


You have not supported your beliefs with any scripture whatsoever, that God would allow his people to believe additions to his word for generations.

Michelle, The TR doesn't represent additions to God's Word nor does the CT represent omissions from God's Word. Every truth taught in the TR is taught in the CT and vice versa. God's Word is not defined by the sum total of words in a particular text or version. God's Word is defined by the truths He revealed through the written Word.

I have been reading the NKJV each night for several weeks now. Each time a margin note cites a difference in the TR, MT, and CT... I ask myself "Does the difference change what the passage is saying in context?" The answer is almost always "no." If "yes", then I ask myself does this change effect any doctrine or biblical teaching, is the addition/omission taught elsewhere in scripture? The answer has always been yes... as verified by the cross references that also appear in the margin.

Here are the facts: Our Bible versions almost always say the exact same thing when read in context. In cases where they don't, the differences do not undermine any doctrine nor introduce a false doctrine. Many versions are accurate representations of God's revealed Word to mankind.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
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").

Yes, the NKJV is different than the KJV1769 revision I use. Different is not "bad", son. Work on some real, concrete examples for discussion.

Thanks.

If you as a translator for MVs want to play the game with God's Word, will God find you a LIAR?
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

[LarryN]

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

An apt quote from Scripture. I wish KJVO's would take it to heart, and not attempt to construct a doctrine without any Scriptural basis.

 

[michelle]

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


--------------------------------------------------
I have been reading the NKJV each night for several weeks now. Each time a margin note cites a difference in the TR, MT, and CT... I ask myself "Does the difference change what the passage is saying in context?"
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

Has it ever occurred to you why you might have to think or ask such a thing while you are studying God's word? Are we studying God's word with doubt in our minds as to whether God really said this? Or are we rather studying God's word for understanding of Him, and his will in our lives? The focus seems to be not on understanding what God is saying to me personally on my life and walk with him, but rather focused upon is this really God's word? Which do you really think God would want your thoughts to be focused upon? Understanding what he is saying to you and believing he has said it? Or doubting if he has said it and trying to figure it out yourself?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

Yes, God's promises were valid then, however these prove they rejected it because of not only the noted alterations made to these texts,

How do you know why it fell out of use? History tells us it had alot more to do with the rise of Islam and the waning of Christianity in the Middle East/Asia minor region.

Again Michelle, you need to put your argument in the context of time and apply it uniformly. The Alexandrian texts were used longer than the TR has so far. Some are now rejecting the TR in favor of the CT or MT. Does that make the TR invalid? No.

but the fact they don't even agree one with the other in most cases,

There is wide variation within the Byzantine text tradition as well. Your argument cannot hold or else you have just proven that we do not in fact have reliable Bibles at all.

and the apostacy that existed then of the gnostics,

Gnostics? The Gnostics were present in areas where both families were copied. But even further, the Gnostics have very little if anything on the Eastern orthodox for perverse beliefs. For instance, read what the "orthodox" church teaches about icons.

which is evident in the alterations that had been made to the texts.

Both the TR and KJV have undergone revision. Since the advent of modern paper and printing, we can afford to start fresh to make "alterations" and corrections. The early church did not possess these advantages. They made corrections directly to existing texts rather than copying the whole Bible by hand from scratch.

History shows that the TR was the text that the believing churches used, believed, lived, preached and handed down for centuries and that this was the words preserved by God from as far back as we can tell, until this very day.

The TR was created by Erasmus in the early 1500's. The traditional or Byzantine text came primarily through the copying efforts of the eastern orthodox (catholic) church and probably did not represent the "majority" until sometime after 700 AD- paralleling the rise of Islam and the division of the Catholic church into the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

It was not preserved by God any more than Sinaiticus was. It was preserved by fallible men making copies to the best of their imperfect abilities.

Either the TR is corrupt and from apostacy, or the Alexandrian family is. They both can't be the same, for they are not the same.

Fallacy of limited alternatives.

They both are the same. They teach the same truths and represent the same revelation from God. The errors in each of them demonstrate that man is fallible. The perfection (completeness) of them together demonstrates the providential fulfillment of God's promise to preserve His Word.

 

[michelle]

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

--------------------------------------------------
Askjo quoted:

If you as a translator for MVs want to play the game with God's Word, will God find you a LIAR?
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------
LarryN quoted:

An apt quote from Scripture. I wish KJVO's would take it to heart, and not attempt to construct a doctrine without any Scriptural basis.
--------------------------------------------------

Askjo,

Thanks for pointing out something very important in the scriptures. If they are to obey God's words, and in obediance to him, they must reject the KJV for all the additions they claim have been added to God's words. They are basically calling the KJV a liar, and that all those christians that taught, believed, preached, lived, etc. for hundreds of years are also liars too, for they also approved of the additions and taught them. They have been found liars, and we know who the father of all lies is, and we are to reject them in obediance to the Lord. They do not though do this, and show their disobediance to God's word, by claiming the KJV is also God's word. Doesn't this indicate their approval of liars to which liars will not be able to enter into the Kingdom of God?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle