Is this a contradiction?

[Pastor_Bob]

Only the original writings by the inspired authors, those who first penned the 66 books of the canon of the Bible, are the actual, inerrant Word of God.”

“Today, even though we do not posses the original autographs (the actual parchments or papyri that Scripture was first written on), and even though meaningful variant readings (copyists differences) exist for about one or two percent of the Bible, we can still know that the copies – collectively taken – give us 100 percent of the original manuscripts. This means that nothing has been lost of God’s original inspiration and that we retain 100 percent of the inerrant Word of God.” The Facts on the King James Version Debate by John Ankerberg & John Weldon – pg. 7

Mr. Ankerberg seems to contradict himself when he says that “only the originals…are the inerrant Word of God,” and then says that we today can “retain 100 percent of the inerrant Word of God.”

I understand that he is stating his belief that, through the multiplicity of manuscript evidence available today, textual critics can construct a text that would accurately represent the originals.

I have heard MV proponents state that they believe the KJV is the Word of God, as well as the NJKV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ASV, WEB, YLT, et al. Some have gone as far as to say that “all” versions are the Word of God.

My question is, “How can this be?” If the KJV and the MVs each begin from a different textual basis, how can they both be the Word of God? Either one is and the other isn’t. Either the KJV adds verses or the MVs omit verses; either way, they are not the same.

So, if we can “ retain 100 percent of the inerrant Word of God,” and I believe we can, then it has to be a product of the Received Text or a product of the Critical text. It cannot be both because the two texts are not the same, and “things that are different are not the same.”

 

[TC]

No, it is not a contradiction. The fact is that all Greek manuscripts differ from each other. The TR is different from the seven mss plus vulgate that Erasmus compiled it from - and they are different from each other. So in reality, you believe the same thing. If the TR is it, then it had to be discerned from all the existing Byzantine/ majority text type of mss (or at least the ones Erasmus had) which are all different from each other.

 

[manchester]

I don't think it's a contradiction, but it's a belief without basis. We might have all the originals as well as false variants. Then again, we might not.

Even if we believe, for some reason, that God has preserved 100% of the originals, we know that Christians have not always had access to 100% of the originals. So there is no reason to believe we have 100% today. Perhaps we had 95% 300 years ago, today we have 98%, and by year 4000 we will have found and reconstructed 100% f the originals?

I believe God could have preserved his core message even if he allowed some copyist errors and variants to creep in over time.

 

[pastorjeff]

There are no originals left. What we have is the Word of God preserved. Even the differences in text are not sufficient enough to change the word of God. Although not inspired, we have the absolute authritative, inerrant Word of God preserved through transmission and translation.

 

[av1611jim]

I disagree with Manchester and TC.
It appears to me to be a contradiction. He is trying to have it both ways. "A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways."
You have hit the 'nail on the head' for me Dr. Bob.
This is why I have made a choice based on the information I have encountered.
Ultimately, IMO, all must make the same choice, one way or the other.
To paraphrase your final comment; you cannot have it BOTH ways.
For me and my house, we choose KJB.
(Please let's not get into the "which one" idiocy. Ok?)
Correct me if I am wrong; but, I don't think the "Critical Text" existed (as such) before the KJB, nor within 100 years or more after it.
In His service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

pastorjeff;
I am having trouble with your comment, "although not inspired".
My Bible either IS or IS NOT Scripture.
If it IS then ,"All Scripture is inspired of God..."
If it IS NOT then, "All Scripture IS NOT inspired of God..."
Can't have it both ways.
In His service;
Jim

 

[pastorjeff]

av1611jim,
That is wrong, it did exist prior to KJB. Maybe the scolars didn't have it, but it existed.

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by pastorjeff:
av1611jim,
That is wrong, it did exist prior to KJB. Maybe the scolars didn't have it, but it existed.

As in "God preserved it"?

 

[manchester]

Picking the TR, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, or anything else does not fix the problem. The reality remains that we have multiple manuscripts, all of which contain "copyist errors" and worse. Picking one of them at random as "the REAL Word of God" doesn't fix the problem, it just puts your head into the sand.

The ideal would be one clear version of the Scriptures, no dispute over Apocrypha and other books, no copyist errors or other errors, perfectly preserved in the original languages. Sadly, we don't have that.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Pastor Bob quoted:

My question is, “How can this be?” If the KJV and the MVs each begin from a different textual basis, how can they both be the Word of God? Either one is and the other isn’t. Either the KJV adds verses or the MVs omit verses; either way, they are not the same.
--------------------------------------------------

You are right Pastor Bob, and I agree with you - and your whole post. This shows the contradiction and confusion of many people have today, that believe this and in direct contradiction to what christians not only believe today, but have always believed in the past.


--------------------------------------------------
pastorjeff quoted:
There are no originals left. What we have is the Word of God preserved. Even the differences in text are not sufficient enough to change the word of God. Although not inspired, we have the absolute authritative, inerrant Word of God preserved through transmission and translation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You either believe you have 100% as God has said and promised and as He has provided/evidenced, or you don't. You cannot have it both ways without contradicting yourself/belief. What you have stated makes no sense and is a foriegn belief only until this modern day, promoted by the modern day scholars of today. It is not inerrant, nor authoritative if it different enouph to change the words (omitt, add, alter). The words are important, and are what makes the message.

Here is a link that I recommend you read:

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/preservd.htm


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
The ideal would be one clear version of the Scriptures, no dispute over Apocrypha and other books, no copyist errors or other errors, perfectly preserved in the original languages. [BSadly, we don't have that.
--------------------------------------------------


Sure we do, and as God has provided it for us today and many generations of believers in the past in the KJB. I wouldn't want to be found guilty of ever saying this to a believer, nor unbeliever, as this could sow doubt and tells them that our God and Faith is not powerful and true, and it will then be mocked, in reality mocking God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[manchester]

If I say that all and only the text in the HCSB is the Word of God, the variants mentioned in footnotes are not the Word of God, and the HCSB is the correct translation of the Word in modern English... then I have a simple, clear belief, but one without basis.

If I say that the sources are often contradictory, that there was dispute over what books were canon, that we cannot always be certain which disputed verse is correct... then I have a belief with basis, but it's complex and unclear.

If I hold the second position, and still believe that the Word is inerrant, I have to believe the originals were inerrant and perfect. I cannot believe our current versions are inerrant and perfect as that is self-evidently false.

 

[HankD]

My Bible either IS or IS NOT Scripture.

It is a translation of the Scripture.

Each of us has gone through the process of coming to a faith based conviction as to the choice of translation(s) and the details surrounding and leading up to this choice.

For some the process simply meant accepting the tried and true 1769 KJV (very very few use the 1611).

Others choose to exercise their faith based conviction after a deeper study and I'm not saying that this is greater/better method than the former.

What is clearly wrong IMO are those who want to play God, issuing innuendo and insults accusing others of being liars and fools without being able to look into their hearts with threats of the final judgment concerning one's spirituality and/or salvation simply because the choice of others is not the same as their own.

Clearly a place where only God Himself can sit, who alone is able to judge the thoughts and intents of the human heart.

James 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


HankD

 

[pastorjeff]

Originally posted by manchester:
Picking the TR, the Vulgate, the Septuagint, or anything else does not fix the problem. The reality remains that we have multiple manuscripts, all of which contain "copyist errors" and worse. Picking one of them at random as "the REAL Word of God" doesn't fix the problem, it just puts your head into the sand.

The ideal would be one clear version of the Scriptures, no dispute over Apocrypha and other books, no copyist errors or other errors, perfectly preserved in the original languages. Sadly, we don't have that.

Wouldn't take much faith that way would it?

 

[manchester]

Michelle, you should be very careful about claiming God had no Word until the KJV was (mis)translated in 1611. Biblical scholars rejected the KJV when it was invented:

"The late Bible... was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches. ... The New edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt."-- Dr. Hugh Broughton, distinguished biblical scholar and translator.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
For me and my house, we choose KJB.
(Please let's not get into the "which one" idiocy. Ok?)

Why is this "idiocy". We have proven vastly different documents, words, phrases, etc that all go under the title of KJV and if ONE is correct, the others are not. Duh.

Idiocy comes from not facing truth.

Originally posted by av1611jim:
Correct me if I am wrong; but, I don't think the "Critical Text" existed (as such) before the KJB, nor within 100 years or more after it.
In His service;
Jim

EVERY greek text we have today is a "critical" text - as in someone took various manuscripts, codices, uncials, fragments, etc and BLENDED them into a "text". They were "critical" in seeking what was the closest, most accurate reading to the original inspired writing.

Erasmus did this with pathetically few resources.
Elziver, Stephens and others continued to add/delete from their text.

With the wonderful discovery of preserved texts in monasteries and the Vatican library (thank you, Jesus, for preserving Your Word), others compiled texts. They too are "critical" in seeking what text was closest to the original, but with varying rules to determine such.

So on the shelf beside me I have some blended, critical texts
Stephanos 1555
TR 1633 (20 years AFTER the AV, duh)
Trinitarian
USB/Aland 27

I am blessed!

 

[manchester]

There is no need to talk about "which" KJV is the correct one. Everyone knows the New King James Version is the same as the 1611 KJV and all the others in between.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
If I hold the second position, and still believe that the Word is inerrant, I have to believe the originals were inerrant and perfect. I cannot believe our current versions are inerrant and perfect as that is self-evidently false.
--------------------------------------------------


It seems as though you are purposely ignoring the
obvious and remain in contradiction and confusion.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[manchester]

Why does anyone think the HCSB is not the one and only true Word of God in the English language?

 

[manchester]

It seems as though you are purposely ignoring the obvious and remain in contradiction and confusion.

Sadly, that's my opinion of you, Michelle. You have never given an iota of support for your beliefs. One can only conclude that you have none, and believe what you prefer despite the evidence. That can only hurt your testimony on everything else.