Does older mean better?

[Jordan Kurecki]

Just because manuscripts are older.. does that really mean they are better and more reliable?

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/older_better.html/

I love Kentucky Fried Chicken. Don't you? I mean who doesn't love a hot, juicy piece of the Colonel's original recipe? Now, let's suppose that when Colonel Sanders was 17 years old, he developed his original recipe and he wrote it down on an old piece of paper. He always kept this paper it in his pocket, and whenever someone wanted to fry chicken, he would pull it out and give them the recipe. However, there were 2 boys (Dick and Harry) that really despised him. His white clothes, white hat, and white beard (well, maybe not at age 17 really irritated them. So, these 2 boys copied his original recipe and they changed it... not a lot...just a little... They added a few ingredients and subtracted a few ingredients, and they copied it on pretty letterhead. They tried to sell the recipe, but no one liked it. Their chicken tasted terrible, and the people were already used to the excellent taste of the Colonel's original recipe. So, they put the recipe in an old shoe box and forgot about it.

About 20 years later, Colonel Sanders began to make millions of dollars franchising his restaurant, and his original recipe became the favorite chicken of millions of Americans. He had so many franchisees, and had pulled the paper out of his pocket and copied the original recipe so many times that the paper literally fell apart. Eventually, he had 2,000 franchisees and millions of satisfied customers. Unfortunately, Colonel Sanders eventually died, but his chicken lived on. Now, when Colonel Sanders died, Dick and Harry (both very old men) remembered the old recipe in the shoe box. They climbed into Harry's attic, pulled out the recipe and began to take out newspaper ads that they had "discovered" their recipe for fried chicken. They sent copies of their supposedly "original" recipe (written on the pretty letterhead) to all 2,000 franchisees, and they demanded that they change their recipe and also pay Harry and Dick a royalty for using the "older" and "better" original recipe, which had mysteriously been lost for decades but now was discovered in an old shoe box.

After trying the new "original" recipe, the franchisees had a dilemma. The recipe which Harry and Dick had "discovered" was definitely OLDER than their recipe (since the Colonel's original recipe had long since disappeared), but the chicken just didn't taste right. Which recipe was the REAL ORIGINAL RECIPE? Well, they solved the problem rather quickly. On one hand, there were 2,000 franchisees, all using the same recipe, all with millions of satisfied customers. On the other hand, there was one recipe, which was definitely older, however, there were no satisfied customers, and no franchisees were using that recipe.

So, what do you think they decided? With such a great "cloud of witnesses" supporting the Colonel's original recipe, the franchisees unanimously concluded that, while Harry and Dick's recipe was definitely OLDER than any of their recipes, it definitely was not better, and it definitely was not the original recipe, since all 2,000 franchisees were using the SAME RECIPE. Thus, they had the TRUE original recipe.

In this analogy, OLDER definitely did NOT mean better.

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

 

[InTheLight]

That's hilarious. And inaccurate. And dishonest. But it was funny!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

That's hilarious. And inaccurate. And dishonest. But it was funny!

It's not meant to be a true story.

It's entirely made up.

 

[Rippon]

Jordon, the newer versions use older manuscripts. The KJV New Testament relies on more "modern" ones. ;-)

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordon, the newer versions use older manuscripts. The KJV New Testament relies on more "modern" ones. ;-)

What's your point?

 

[Rippon]

What's your point?

Irony, Jordon. Irony.

 

[InTheLight]

It's not meant to be a true story.

It's entirely made up.

Yeah, I know. But the underlying "moral of the story" is inaccurate and dishonest.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I realize that the point of this sad little analogy is to support the claim that the King James Bible is the only correct Bible.

However, there is a flaw in the analogy.

In the story, the original recipe and the current recipe used by the restaurant are the exact same one, written by the same author, in the same language, in the same generation, by the same person, in the same handwriting ("He copied the original so many times that it fell apart.")

The original manuscripts and the King James Bible are not written by the same author (the former being inspired and the latter not) nor in the same language nor in the same generation nor by the same person nor in the same handwriting.

I was raised on the King James and like it, but brother, this analogy is not a good one.

 

[InTheLight]

I was raised on the King James and like it, but brother, this analogy is not a good one.

You're spot on, as usual.

In a proper analogy, Colonel Sanders would not have taken the recipe out of his pocket and copied it over and over and over until it disintegrated. He would have made several copies and distributed them to his first franchises. The owners of those franchises would have copied them and distributed them to new franchises. Some of these new franchise owners would have added a few things that they thought made the recipe better, things that weren't in the recipe that Sanders carried around.

Harry and Dick wouldn't have demanded the other franchises adopt their recipe, they would have started their own chicken restaurants. People that tried their chicken would have said, "hey, that tastes like chicken. It's so close to Colonel Sanders recipe that I can't tell the difference. Furthermore, I understand their menu so much easier and it's easier to order. I'm satisfied and I'm not going back to the old style recipe."

 

[preachinjesus]

Never thought I'd see a KFC story to try to prove KJVO. Of course, I also never thought I'd see sub $2 gas.

Terrible story and worse conclusion. You can't compare these two. Entirely different fields.

That said, the problem with the manuscript data for the KJVO is that they rely on newer manuscripts that have been proven inaccurate (not to the detriment of the translation) given the earlier manuscripts being found. As a result, the textual basis is obscured and does not produce the best translation.

There's no reason to be dogmatic about one translation over another. Since the task of translation is, ultimately, developmental and always advancing. We know more now than we did two decades ago and entirely more than 100 years ago. That's okay, it's the nature of the translators task.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You're spot on, as usual.

In a proper analogy, Colonel Sanders would not have taken the recipe out of his pocket and copied it over and over and over until it disintegrated. He would have made several copies and distributed them to his first franchises. The owners of those franchises would have copied them and distributed them to new franchises. Some of these new franchise owners would have added a few things that they thought made the recipe better, things that weren't in the recipe that Sanders carried around.

Harry and Dick wouldn't have demanded the other franchises adopt their recipe, they would have started their own chicken restaurants. People that tried their chicken would have said, "hey, that tastes like chicken. It's so close to Colonel Sanders recipe that I can't tell the difference. Furthermore, I understand their menu so much easier and it's easier to order. I'm satisfied and I'm not going back to the old style recipe."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Pktng69Ss

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I realize that the point of this sad little analogy is to support the claim that the King James Bible is the only correct Bible.

However, there is a flaw in the analogy.

In the story, the original recipe and the current recipe used by the restaurant are the exact same one, written by the same author, in the same language, in the same generation, by the same person, in the same handwriting ("He copied the original so many times that it fell apart.")

The original manuscripts and the King James Bible are not written by the same author (the former being inspired and the latter not) nor in the same language nor in the same generation nor by the same person nor in the same handwriting.

I was raised on the King James and like it, but brother, this analogy is not a good one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAzdQI_4pbo

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Never thought I'd see a KFC story to try to prove KJVO. Of course, I also never thought I'd see sub $2 gas.

Terrible story and worse conclusion. You can't compare these two. Entirely different fields.

That said, the problem with the manuscript data for the KJVO is that they rely on newer manuscripts that have been proven inaccurate (not to the detriment of the translation) given the earlier manuscripts being found. As a result, the textual basis is obscured and does not produce the best translation.

There's no reason to be dogmatic about one translation over another. Since the task of translation is, ultimately, developmental and always advancing. We know more now than we did two decades ago and entirely more than 100 years ago. That's okay, it's the nature of the translators task.

They have been proven to be inaccurate by earlier manuscripts?

Which manuscripts?

 

[Scarlett O.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAzdQI_4pbo

OK, I watched the video. Twice.

The guy was refuting that only the originals are inspired.

His opening argument that those who believe that only the originals are inspired "..only have faith in the originals that do not exist".

I have faith in the Word of God. While the originals are no more, varying translations, such as the King James and more exist in abundance. I have faith in quite a few of them including the King James. So, he is wrong right off the bat.

He also said, "How do you know if the Word has been added to or taken away from if you don't have it ... a standard by which you can check?"

Why does he think that the King James is the standard?

He also used Psalm 12 - that is only a portion of Psalm 12 to claim preservation of God's Word. You and I have already had the discussion about this NOT being about God's Words. He used the passage out of context.

I believe that only the originals written by the initials authors were directly inspired by God via the Holy Spirit.

But I also have faith in the King James, the New King James, the ESV, the Holman, and more that God's Word will not pass away.

But none of those translations are inspired like the originals were.

 

[T Alan]

I realize that the point of this sad little analogy is to support the claim that the King James Bible is the only correct Bible.

However, there is a flaw in the analogy.

In the story, the original recipe and the current recipe used by the restaurant are the exact same one, written by the same author, in the same language, in the same generation, by the same person, in the same handwriting ("He copied the original so many times that it fell apart.")

The original manuscripts and the King James Bible are not written by the same author (the former being inspired and the latter not) nor in the same language nor in the same generation nor by the same person nor in the same handwriting.

I was raised on the King James and like it, but brother, this analogy is not a good one.

:applause:

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

OK, I watched the video. Twice.

The guy was refuting that only the originals are inspired.

His opening argument that those who believe that only the originals are inspired "..only have faith in the originals that do not exist".

I have faith in the Word of God. While the originals are no more, varying translations, such as the King James and more exist in abundance. I have faith in quite a few of them including the King James. So, he is wrong right off the bat.

He also said, "How do you know if the Word has been added to or taken away from if you don't have it ... a standard by which you can check?"

Why does he think that the King James is the standard?

He also used Psalm 12 - that is only a portion of Psalm 12 to claim preservation of God's Word. You and I have already had the discussion about this NOT being about God's Words. He used the passage out of context.

I believe that only the originals written by the initials authors were directly inspired by God via the Holy Spirit.

But I also have faith in the King James, the New King James, the ESV, the Holman, and more that God's Word will not pass away.

But none of those translations are inspired like the originals were.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Did Timothy have the originals? no.
is all scripture inspired of God? yes
Did Timothy have scriptures? yes
are the scriptures Timothy have inspired? yes
Can you have something inspired that is not the originals?
Yes

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

OK, I watched the video. Twice.

The guy was refuting that only the originals are inspired.

His opening argument that those who believe that only the originals are inspired "..only have faith in the originals that do not exist".

I have faith in the Word of God. While the originals are no more, varying translations, such as the King James and more exist in abundance. I have faith in quite a few of them including the King James. So, he is wrong right off the bat.

He also said, "How do you know if the Word has been added to or taken away from if you don't have it ... a standard by which you can check?"

Why does he think that the King James is the standard?

He also used Psalm 12 - that is only a portion of Psalm 12 to claim preservation of God's Word. You and I have already had the discussion about this NOT being about God's Words. He used the passage out of context.

I believe that only the originals written by the initials authors were directly inspired by God via the Holy Spirit.

But I also have faith in the King James, the New King James, the ESV, the Holman, and more that God's Word will not pass away.

But none of those translations are inspired like the originals were.

You simply claimed that Psalm 12 is talking about his people, in context it makes perfect sense that God would be talking about his words, hence how it says the words of the Lord are pure.

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words :

"Thematic analysis

The theme of the 12th Psalm is about the contrast between the vain words of man and the enduring words of the LORD. The entire Psalm in the KJV is quoted below with portions that relate to "words" or "speech" underlined:

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Verse 7 says, "thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The pronoun "them" (assuming for the moment that the pronoun should in fact be "them") most likely refers to "the words of the LORD" in verse 6. One reason for this is that the main focus of this Psalm is about the superiority of God's "words". Contrary to what some critics say, the main focus of this Psalm is not about God's protection of his people per se. Even though the protection of God's people is an issue, that is not the main theme. The main theme is "words". This is apparent in that the assaults against God's people are restricted to conduct related to "words". If the main theme should be the protection of God's people, other vices against the godly such as physical violence could be mentioned. Yet that is not the case. There is a deliberate and exclusive focus on verbal conduct. This Psalm is all about the theme of the triumph of God's eternal words over the vain words of man."

"Syntactical analysis

The syntax justifies interpreting "them" in verse 7 as referring to "the words of the LORD". The "words of the LORD" or its simile, the "silver", is the nearest noun and can be presumed to be the antecedent. The "poor" or the "needy" are more distant and therefore less likely to be the antecedent."

"Logical analysis

From a logical analysis, it would seem pointless to declare the preciousness of the "words of the LORD" by comparing it to silver, and not go anywhere with the point. Why mention the preciousness of the words of the LORD only to make the point that the LORD will preserve people? The preciousness of the words of the LORD and the preservation of people are logically unrelated. There is, however, a logical connection between the preciousness of the words of the LORD and God's intent to preserve that which is precious."

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

"Critics note that if the Hebrew were followed, the pronominal suffix to "preserve", translated as "them", in Psalm 12:7 should be in the third person masculine singular. Thus some translations such as the NASB say, "You will preserve him from this generation forever." While it is true that the Hebrew has a masculine singular pronoun, that is not the full story. The marginal note by the KJV translators says, "Heb. him. i. every one of them" (KJV 1611). The singular is used distributively in reference to a plurality. The translators clearly knew that the pronoun should be grammatically singular. However, this grammatically singular pronoun is nonetheless semantically plural. Such a pronoun exists even in English. The word "everyone" in English is grammatically singular but is semantically plural:
"I love everyone. I love them."
"Everyone" is a grammatically singular word. We say "Everyone is here," not "Everyone are here." However, the pronoun used to refer to the word "everyone" is the plural pronoun "them." "Everyone" is a grammatically singular word with a plural meaning. Likewise, although the Hebrew pronoun in Psalm 12:7 is grammatically singular, it is semantically plural. The combination of the plural "them" (...keep them...) and the distributive singular "him" (...preserve them...) adds emphasis and certainty that "each and every" word is kept and preserved. The conversion of "him" to "them" in the translation process is discretionary and is acceptable because in English we do not refer to "silver" or "words" with a masculine personal pronoun.

With respect to gender agreement, the grammatical gender mismatch between the masculine pronominal suffixes ("them (תשׁמרם)"/"him (תצרנו)") and the feminine "words (אמרות)" can be explained by "words" taking the masculine semantic orientation of "words", which is often used in its masculine form of "אמר (emer)". As used in Psalm 12:6 in the construct state, "אמרות יהוה (words of the LORD)", these "words" belong to a masculine figure and therefore the "words" themselves take a semantically masculine orientation."

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words

 

[Scarlett O.]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Psalm 12 is talking about God preserving his literal Words.

How do you make this connect to the King James Bible?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Psalm 12 is talking about God preserving his literal Words.

How do you make this connect to the King James Bible?

by faith, I can't point to anything else that would be the preserved word of God in English. the KJV has 400 years of spiritual fruit.

I also find it that the Critical text ignores this principle, the philosophy behind modern critical texts is in fact that God has not preserved his word, but that we must restore it.

Modern Version users don't believe God has preserved his word anywhere... I have a hard time accepting by faith that God's preserved word is in an ever changing multitude of versions based on a constantly changing greek text.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/everchangingnasbs.htm

Am I to believe that it is found in the multitude of versions based on a greek text that is influenced by Romish influences?

"I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:

"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts". "

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm