Heretick or Divisive?

[Will J. Kinney]

Hank says: So you propose that when it comes to the KJV several editions one word differences there is one standard for the KJB devotees but another for everyone else.
The KJV difference here in Ruth is glossed over and somehow explained away by "asses" not being mentioned.
Strange as well as duplicitous."

Hank, if you are remotely interested in reading what I wrote about the printing errors in the different KJB editions, here is the site.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

There is a big difference, at least in my understanding, between an accidental printing error, and a deliberate change in text or meaning. One is done intentionally and the other is not.

God has preserved His pure words providentially, not miraculously.

Will

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Brian, the position I now see several of you Biblical relativists promoting is that all the bible versions are inspired and infallible, no matter how contradictory in numerous passages, and no matter that the ESV adds literally hundreds of words to the Old Testament not found even in the NASB, or NIV.

It apparently doesn't matter that numerous whole verses are found in one version and not in another, or that the meaning is drastically different in hundreds of verses - they all are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. So says Dr. Bob too.

I sit back and marvel. It looks like words do not have the same meaning for you as they do for me. We both speak English, yet it is like we are each using a foreign language with the other that both do not know.

Is this called Bible Babel?

How someone can think that these two examples of literally hundreds I have noticed can both equally be the inspired, infallible, complete words of God, baffles me.

One of the hundreds of Scripture references called into question by today's bible translators is I Samuel 13:1. We read in the Authorized King James Bible: "Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."

"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS..." This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

The Spanish Reina Valera 1960 reads: "Había ya reinado Saúl UN ANO; y cuando hubo reinado DOS años sobre Israel..."= KJB

Italian Diodati - Saulle avea regnato UN ANNO, e poi (then) dopo (after) aver regnato DUE ANNI sopra Israele..." = KJB

Luther 1545: Saul war ein jar König gewesen / vnd da er zwey jar vber Jsrael regiert hatte...

"Saul was king one year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel...= KJB

The Swiss Zürcher 1531 says exactly the same thing.

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was (forty) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused. The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years. The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years." So was Saul 30 or 40, and did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 32 as some NASBs have it or the 42 of the NIV?

Not only do the NIV, ASV and NASB all contradict each other, but they also contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned over Israel 40 years.

Have some of God's words been lost or dropped out of the text? Or has God been faithful to His promises to preserve His words here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away? Jesus said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." This is either a true statement or Jesus lied to us. The modern version translators imply that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't really mean what He said.

Example #2

Exodus 26:14

"Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "sea cows". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".

While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) do you think they could have scrounged up?

Now, could you do me a big favor? Explain to me real slowly so I can understand, how are all of these equally the inspired, infallible words of God. I just don't get it.

Maybe Ed or John can help out here. I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes and could use some tutoring.

Thanks,

Will

Hi Will,

I've not been around the Baptist Board in ages, but decided to come back today to read some of the posts. I must say, I had been begining to wander towards this "all versions say basically the same thing" attitude - but your post above has proven this completely wrong! Thank you for your message. I'm sticking with the A.V.!

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
So? Either way, both Boaz and Ruth went into the "citie", and probably the asses they rode upon. Is the KJB wrong to not mention the asses too? Should it read,"She, he, and it went into the citie"?

It should read what the original author wrote. If the original author wrote "he", then "she" (although maybe factually true) would be a textual corruption, and vice versa. </font>[/QUOTE]Brian, You don't know what the original "penman" wrote and the KJB Translators did. Now go back to your sand box toys and hush.

I don't guess about corruptions, I see them and also can smell'em

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi Brian, I'm saying that belief in an inspired Bible that we hold in our hands is the historic position. It is you conflicting multiversionists who now hold the position that "only the originals were inspired", and that today we do not have any inspired Bible.

Again, you tell me what I believe. Again, you are wrong.

Will, "belief in an inspired Bible" and "belief that the KJV is word-perfect and should be used exclusively and all other Bibles are not God's word" are two completely different things. I agree the first is historical. The second is NOT - it is unorthodox, it not historical, and it is divisive. Strictly speaking then, according to your definitions in your first post, it is heresy. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Brian, since the LORD is divisive against the proliferations by satan, does that make Him a heretic? GOD FORBID.

 

[gb93433]

If the KJV is so perfect then why has it not made the same distinction that the Greek does with "love" in verses 15 and 17 of John 21?

 

[Precepts]

Strange as well as duplicitous.

HankD

P.S. My defintion of KJVO:

The following is the essential and pivotal ERROR:

I would ask you to look a little closer at how you've said this.

Your "error".

Hank, I like you man, you have a very ,uh,wierd sense of humor.

In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?

BTW, if you didn't have a "button" to push, I couldn't PUSH it!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Strange as well as duplicitous.

HankD

P.S. My defintion of KJVO:

The following is the essential and pivotal ERROR:

I would ask you to look a little closer at how you've said this.

Your "error".

Hank, I like you man, you have a very ,uh,wierd sense of humor.

In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?

BTW, if you didn't have a "button" to push, I couldn't PUSH it! </font>[/QUOTE]How many do you think have not been corrupted?

 

[robycop3]

QS: "In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?"

How does Dr. Ruckman know which are corrupt and which are not?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Will J. Kinney: "Brian, the position I now see several
of you Biblical relativists promoting is that all the bible
versions are inspired and infallible, no matter how contradictory
in numerous passages, and no matter that the ESV adds
literally hundreds of words to the Old Testament
not found even in the NASB, or NIV."

This is exactly the same argument i've seen agnostics
and athiests use to argue me down when i say the
Holy Bible is inerrant.

Ed, the position I now see several of you Bible thumpers
promoting is that all the Bible is inspired and infallible,
no matter how contradictory in numerous passages,
and no matter that the Bible adds literally hundreds of words
in italics (i.e. not found in the source documents).

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Brian, I'm having just a little bit of a problem trying to connect the dots in your reasoning process here.

I honestly don't know why. I have explained it numerous times to you, I have shown you how even the KJV translators hold the same position as I do. If you are as well-studied on the issue as you present yourself to be, you should at least know and understand the position of those you are arguing against. You have been debating this for years, and have written many articles, and yet you don't even understand what you are arguing against? Don't you realize how totally amazing (and somewhat ridiculous) that appears to us?

 

[HankD]

There is a big difference, at least in my understanding, between an accidental printing error, and a deliberate change in text or meaning. One is done intentionally and the other is not.

I agree completely Will. But then there is a big problem here. Who are we to say what is intentional and what is not. We may strongly suspect but unless those who made the change admit to dishonesty then we have to determine what is correct and what is not the best we can from a criteria that makes sense and does not insult the intelligence.

Bottom line: an error is an error. It is just as wrong after we know the motive of the blunderer as it was wrong before we knew said motive.

Therefore I would say to forget the motive.
God will take care of that in the bye-and-bye.
All we can do is determine the truth from the "tried and true" as the Spirit leads.

HankD

 

[HankD]

In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?

BTW, if you didn't have a "button" to push, I couldn't PUSH it!

As to the "corrupt" Greek Text. I don't like the word "corrupt". I prefer "flawed" or a phrase such as "poor scribal quality".

We may say something is corrupt such as the Alexandrian MS. Others however prefer them because they are "oldest" and therefore conclude they are "best".

My faith belief trusts in the "tried and true" of the TR which came out of the same councils which decided the cannon of Scripture. Even W&H admitted to this and in fact every eclectic text with an aparatus contains all of the TR.
Some of it relegated to the apparatus but it is all or mostly there.

My kids also think I have a strange sense of humor. They know all my buttons as well.

HankD

 

[Precepts]

All we can do is determine the truth from the "tried and true" as the Spirit leads.

HankD

So then you finally admit the KJHB is the Right Bible!

Now if the rest of the bunch could walk in the light as you have.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HankD:
All we can do is determine the truth from the "tried and true" as the Spirit leads.

HankD

So are you saying that none are spiritual no not even one, except you?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HankD:


My faith belief trusts in the "tried and true" of the TR which came out of the same councils which decided the cannon of Scripture.

HankD [/QB]

You may believe in the cannon of scripture but the canon was developed over a long period of time to where we have it today.

You do know that the TR was a political football at the time. In 1 John 5:7,8 it includes the Greek text translated from the Latin Vulgate which is not in any early manuscripts preceding the 16th century and not quoted by the early Chruch Fathers.

 

[Precepts]

You do know that the TR was a political football at the time. In 1 John 5:7,8 it includes the Greek text translated from the Latin Vulgate which is not in any early manuscripts preceding the 16th century and not quoted by the early Chruch Fathers.

But isn't the thought implied and the "added" verses important to relate the doctrinal truth to the Trinity?

I wouldn't call this example of "adding" words, but only clarity to confirm and establish Doctrine. It is O.K. to confirm and establish the Doctrine of the Trinity isn't it?

 

[rsr]

Not if you believe in verbal inspiration.

Bookmark the above post.

 

[Precepts]

Is verbal inspiration not translatable into English from Greek to establish in that language the full intent of the inspired Word?

Isn't there a slight difference in quoting "verbatum" vs simple translation of plenary and verbal inspiration? Isn't it impossible to translate "verbatum" the Greek into English?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the word "verbal" meaning to voice a meaning when used in translation when the verbatum isn't available?

Man, wouldn't that clear up alot of the nonsense about "added words"?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Verbal = word for word. Not meaning for meaning.

Formal equivalence translations seek that word for word translation.

Dynamic equivalence translations seek the meaning for meaning translation.

Did God inspired the exact WORDS or just the "meaning"? $64,000 question.

If you opt for the Words, there are a number of fairly good translations out there, including the ASV1901, NASB, KJV1769, NKJV, et al

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You do know that the TR was a political football at the time. In 1 John 5:7,8 it includes the Greek text translated from the Latin Vulgate which is not in any early manuscripts preceding the 16th century and not quoted by the early Chruch Fathers.

But isn't the thought implied and the "added" verses important to relate the doctrinal truth to the Trinity?

I wouldn't call this example of "adding" words, but only clarity to confirm and establish Doctrine. It is O.K. to confirm and establish the Doctrine of the Trinity isn't it? </font>[/QUOTE]The people who copied the manuscripts did add commentary in the margin at first to help explain the text. But then later some of it made it into the text of scripture. It is the job of the textual critic to try and determine what the original text was and put the commentary aside.

I John 5:7,8 is a deliberate effort in the 16 th century to come up with a Greek text for 1 John 5:7,8 when none existed. It is an effort to support a doctine but is not scripture. Therefore it cannot be nothing more than explanation or commentary and not part of the Bible. I belieev it is very misleading. If you knew how those verses made it into the Bible you would certainly suspect the motive of thsoe who did add it. It is much like someone saying, "The Bible says," when it really doesn't when it should be said that the Bible teaches.

There is absolutely no support for that addition. It should have never been there in the first place. My point is that it is an addition to the words God inspired. Anything other than what God inspired is not scripture. If you ever talk with the JW's they will tell you about those verses. I would not ever want to be ill informed and mislead someone intentionally. So many Christian writers from the past have led people to believe things that are simply not true and cannot be supported. They sound good and people marvel at how the preacher came up with such depth of understanding when it was not there in the first place.