Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

[jbh28]

I do not know for an absolute fact that the TR did not add to God's word. I believe it to be the preserved and pure word of God by faith, not by any scientific or scholarly proof. If we had proof then we would not need faith to believe God's promise to preserve his pure word.

That is what some folks can't seem to grasp. We are supposed to believe God's promises by faith, not proof.

Ok, faith in what? What is the bases that the TR is better than the CT? You said it is faith. Faith in what? What are you placing your faith in that told you that?

 

[Amy.G]

Ok, faith in what? What is the bases that the TR is better than the CT? You said it is faith. Faith in what? What are you placing your faith in that told you that?

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

I tend to agree.

But if it is truly a manuscript question, as so well stated above, one must also accept the NKJV as a valid translation.

 

[Winman]

Ok, faith in what? What is the bases that the TR is better than the CT? You said it is faith. Faith in what? What are you placing your faith in that told you that?

Well, faith does not mean a lack of evidence. The scriptures say the creation is evidence to all men that there is a God. So, my faith in the RT is not without some evidence, although the ongoing controversy here demonstrates there is not absolute proof.

I believe that the vast majority of extant texts (over 90%) supports the RT over the CT.

I believe that early writings of church fathers and scriptures in other languages dating back to the earliest centuries after Christ supports the RT.

I believe the source of these texts supports the RT. The RT has the support of faithful, God-fearing people throughout history, the CT has it's support from Egypt and the corrupt Catholic church which persecuted and put to death millions of these faithful believers.

I believe those men who gave their lives during the Reformation to write the scriptures in English and other languages supports the RT. They too were persecuted and killed by the Catholic church.

I believe the history of the church and the gospel after the Reformation supports the RT. The KJB was the primary version used to bring the word of God to all continents and nations, first by the English and later by America.

However, the time of domination by the Catholic church is rightly called the Dark Ages. It was a cruel time of persecution and oppression. Many millions were tortured and burned at the stake for being baptized as the scriptures instruct. Anyone who opposed the Catholic church was put to death.

The two primary sources of the CT are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both full of errors and disagreed with each other over three thousand times in the four gospels alone. They omit approximately 200 verses compared to the RT. Large portions of scripture are missing in the Vaticanus such as Gen 1:1 through Gen 46:28, Psalms 106 through 138, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles and the book of Revelation, and much more besides.

Does that sound like a reliable text to you? Are these simply minor omissions of scripture?

The RT on the other hand has been said to be "of one voice". Yes, there are differences in the over 5000 texts that support it, but they are minor and minuscule compared to the CT, and far fewer than the CT.

These are some of the reasons I believe the RT and the KJB derived from it is the preserved and pure word of God.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

What if neither is "better"?

 

[Steven2006]

I tend to agree.

But if it is truly a manuscript question, as so well stated above, one must also accept the NKJV as a valid translation.

I could be wrong, but I do believe Amy once mentioned that she uses the NKJV.

 

[Steven2006]

What if neither is "better"?

I think I read once if you were to list all the differences it would take up only about half of a page, and none of those differences bring into question or contradict any doctrine.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I do not know for an absolute fact that the TR did not add to God's word. I believe it to be the preserved and pure word of God by faith, not by any scientific or scholarly proof. If we had proof then we would not need faith to believe God's promise to preserve his pure word.

That is what some folks can't seem to grasp. We are supposed to believe God's promises by faith, not proof. So, it doesn't bother me whatsoever that there is all this controversy about which are the exact preserved and pure words of God. I simply believe God kept his promise. I can't explain it, and I don't try to explain it, I simply believe it.

Then the question is what is the nature of God's promise. Your view of His promise is inconsistent and contradictory. Thats where the problem lies.

Your second statement is not correct. Many here have claimed mulitple times that both the CT and RT are God's preserved word. That is impossible. Either the CT diminished from God's word, or the RT added to it, but they cannot both be preserved and pure. God said he would not only preserve his word, but also that it would be pure, that means without error or corruption. So the CT and RT cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.

You say that people claim the TR and CT are the same.
I say they don't.
You say that is wrong because they claim the TR and CT are both God's preserved word??

That they may hold that both are God's preserved word does not mean that they claim both the TR and CT are the same. What it means is that their view of what constitutes God's preserved word is broader and more inclusive than your view. You make the fallacy of applying your definitions to their statements. Reading their statements within their own context, my statement is perfectly accurate - no one claims that the TR and the CT are the same.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I think I read once if you were to list all the differences it would take up only about half of a page, and none of those differences bring into question or contradict any doctrine.

While I don't know about the volume the differences represent, I am quite confident that no doctrine has been changed or left out by the changes.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the TR represents texts that had things added to the original for the sake of clarity. If so, then the TR can be viewed as the amplified God's word - everything present with clarifications added. In some people's minds, this would mean that the TR is not God's word. Yet in my view, such is not the case. In fact, any system of thought which insists that only an exact word for word copy of the original is God's preserved word is going to run into some serious difficulties. Those who use such a rigid definition invariably rely on contradictions and fallacies whenever they claim to have possession of such a thing.

 

[Winman]

Then the question is what is the nature of God's promise. Your view of His promise is inconsistent and contradictory. Thats where the problem lies.

It would be helpful if you would explain your comments. Anyone can say "you are inconsistent" and then not explain what is inconsistent.

I see nothing inconsistent about what I believe. I believe the vast majority of extant texts support the RT. Do they all perfectly agree? No. But the differences are very minor, especially compared to the dramatic differences between the CT texts and none affect doctrine.

Study for yourself and you will learn the RT texts are incredibly consistent with each other, and that the CT texts are dramatically different from each other.

 

[glfredrick]

Hmm, you seemed to miss something very big from the bible. At the end of Acts 21 there was a crowd that wanted to kill Paul but he was saved by Roman soldiers. He asked the captain to allow him to speak to the people. The bible said, "And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)" He goes on to make his defence to them, explaining how he persecuted the Christians until Christ came to him on the road to Damascus. He stated that Christ said unto him, "Depart: for I will send thee far hence to the Gentiles." Luke then records, "and they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live."

Ok, so we have Paul speaking to them in Hebrew. Apparently Hebrew wasn't quite as lost as you thought. When he spake to them in Hebrew, they kept the more silence. Why? Well, it was their tongue. The Gentiles that were there couldn't understand what he was telling them. Finally, when he tells that Christ said He would send him to the Gentiles, Luke said they gave him audience until that word, and then they cried out for him to be killed. The fact is, these Jews hated the Gentiles. They didn't like the Romans being there, they thought the Gentiles were dogs, and they especially hated the idea of the religion going out to the Gentiles. The idea of a religious message being given on an equal footing to Gentiles, and Gentiles being equal with Jews in religion was offensive to them.

Given all these facts, I find it hard to believe that Jesus preached from the LXX. Is it possible? Yes, I wasn't there. But it just doesn't add up to Jewish notions at the time.

Paul, though probably possessing actual Hebrew skills as trained by one of Israel's finest teachers, spoke not in Hebrew, but in the dialect of the Hebrews, in other words, Aramaic. Virtually every commentator agrees. Hebrew was not a common spoken language at this time.

Here is one of the places where insistence on a KJV translation has let you down and suggested something that is not precisely translated. The Greek says "hebrais dialektos" = Hebrew dialect, not Hebrew "tongue," which would imply, as you suggested, that the actual language of Hebrew was spoken by Paul.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
"in the Hebrew tongue-the Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of the Palestine Jews since the captivity"

Wesley's Notes:
"In the Hebrew tongue - That dialect of it, which was then commonly spoken at Jerusalem (Aramaic)"

Vincent's Word Studies:
"Lit., dialect: the language spoken by the Palestinian Jews - a mixture of Syriac and Chaldaic"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue; which the people he spoke to best understood, and was his own mother tongue; the Alexandrian copy reads, "in his own dialect"; this was not pure Hebrew that was spoke in common in those times, but the Syro-Chaldean language"

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
"He spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue - What was called then the Hebrew, viz. the Chaldaeo-Syriac; very well expressed by the Codex Bezae, τῃ ιδιᾳ διαλεκτῳ, in their own dialect."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
"In the Hebrew tongue - The language which was spoken by the Jews, which was then a mixture of the Chaldee and Syriac, called Syro-Chaldaic. This language he doubtless used on this occasion in preference to the Greek, because it was understood better by the multitude, and would tend to conciliate them if they heard him address them in their own tongue."



About "Jewish notions at that time..." I humbly suggest a study of Jewish culture. They were very Hellenized. Greek or Aramaic were the languages of the day.

 

[jbh28]

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

That would be a good argument for the TR text. Though I wouldn't hold to it, it's not a bad position to take. Thanks for your answer. I'm not against all parts of kjv only nor reasons for it. I'm only against the bad reasons. there are good people with good reasons(such as the one you gave) for being kjvo. I have nothing against that at all.

 

[dwmoeller1]

It would be helpful if you would explain your comments. Anyone can say "you are inconsistent" and then not explain what is inconsistent.

I see nothing inconsistent about what I believe. I believe the vast majority of extant texts support the RT. Do they all perfectly agree? No. But the differences are very minor, especially compared to the dramatic differences between the CT texts and none affect doctrine.

Study for yourself and you will learn the RT texts are incredibly consistent with each other, and that the CT texts are dramatically different from each other.

However, for your view to work consistently, 100% agreement would be needed. Otherwise, God did not preserve His pure word, merely His almost pure word. Likewise, if you allow for a 1% difference, why not allow for a 2% difference? Or 3 or 10% difference? Once anything less than 100% accuracy is allowed to be considered God's preserved word, then the differences become a matter of degree and not kind.

This is what I mean by inconsistency. You don't allow for differences in the CT even though they are minor and don't affect doctrine, yet you allow for inconsistency in the TR simply because its not as bad. It is inconsistent to insist on a narrow and exclusive view of God's preserved word when what you consider to be God's preserved word falls short of the standard of perfection itself. You seem to argue that the TR is both God's preserved pure word...yet not quite really pure. Differences in the TR are excused as ok, but inconsistencies in the CT are not. Inconsistent.

 

[stilllearning]

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

Thanks Amy.G

I never thought of it that way........
“What in the world did Christians do, before 1881, and the MV’s?”

 

[dwmoeller1]

Thanks Amy.G

I never thought of it that way........
“What in the world did Christians do, before 1881, and the MV’s?”

Again, what if neither the CT or TR should be thought of as "better" than the other? The argument only works if one assumes that differences make one better than the other. But if that is true, then which edition of the TR is better than the other? Which edition of the KJV is better than the other? Which is better, the majority text of the TR? Etc.

 

[jbh28]

Well, faith does not mean a lack of evidence. The scriptures say the creation is evidence to all men that there is a God. So, my faith in the RT is not without some evidence, although the ongoing controversy here demonstrates there is not absolute proof.

So then you do look at scientific and scholarly evidence to support your position. Your faith is that god preserved his word(as I have faith in the same). What you based which text over is scientific and scholarly evidence.

I believe that the vast majority of extant texts (over 90%) supports the RT over the CT.

This would be that scientific and scholarly evidence. Also, your statement is misleading. Over 90% of extant texts support the CT as well. It's that there are some variants that the CT took the minority reading over the majority. In these instances, then yes, the majority would support the TR over the CT at these variants. But your statement makes it appear as a whole and not specific variants which is really what it is.

I don't agree with the majority view, but it isn't a bad position to have. Just be careful how you word it to others. You don't want to make it say something that is incorrect.

I believe that early writings of church fathers and scriptures in other languages dating back to the earliest centuries after Christ supports the RT.

There is support for both here. that's part of what happens in textual criticism. Again, more scientific and scholarly evidence.

I believe the source of these texts supports the RT. The RT has the support of faithful, God-fearing people throughout history, the CT has it's support from Egypt and the corrupt Catholic church which persecuted and put to death millions of these faithful believers.

Logical fallacy. Guilt by association. Not true. etc... If the Catholic church used the TR would you reject it then? Of course not, so don't use that as your support. The JW's used the KJV for years but that doesn't make the KJV bad. The Mormons still use the KJV, but that doesn't make it bad. Also, Erasmus was a Catholic. Does that make the TR now bad? Of course not, but according to your argument it would.

I believe those men who gave their lives during the Reformation to write the scriptures in English and other languages supports the RT. They too were persecuted and killed by the Catholic church.

irrelevant to the discussion

I believe the history of the church and the gospel after the Reformation supports the RT. The KJB was the primary version used to bring the word of God to all continents and nations, first by the English and later by America.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is the only good version. It also doesn't mean that it's source text is the only one. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition. They also never used forums to talk about subjects, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't today

However, the time of domination by the Catholic church is rightly called the Dark Ages. It was a cruel time of persecution and oppression. Many millions were tortured and burned at the stake for being baptized as the scriptures instruct. Anyone who opposed the Catholic church was put to death.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The two primary sources of the CT are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both full of errors and disagreed with each other over three thousand times in the four gospels alone. They omit approximately 200 verses compared to the RT. Large portions of scripture are missing in the Vaticanus such as Gen 1:1 through Gen 46:28, Psalms 106 through 138, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles and the book of Revelation, and much more besides.

Not even close to true. The CT uses all the manuscripts for evidence. yes, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are highly regarded, but can hardly be called the "two primary sources." And yes, thy are missing verses. SO DO ALL MANUSCRIPTS. Remember, manuscripts are not complete Bibles as some kjv only writings want to allude to.

Does that sound like a reliable text to you? Are these simply minor omissions of scripture?

So, are you wanting to say that only complete manuscripts should be used? Well, then we would be left with...nothing.

The RT on the other hand has been said to be "of one voice". Yes, there are differences in the over 5000 texts that support it, but they are minor and minuscule compared to the CT, and far fewer than the CT.

These are some of the reasons I believe the RT and the KJB derived from it is the preserved and pure word of God.

Very well, just be careful of your generalizations and logical fallacies.

Also, this doesn't add up to...

I believe it to be the preserved and pure word of God by faith, not by any scientific or scholarly proof. If we had proof then we would not need faith to believe God's promise to preserve his pure word.

No, you believe by scientific and scholarly proof that the TR is better than the CT. You believe by faith that God preserved His word.

 

[jbh28]

Thanks Amy.G

I never thought of it that way........
“What in the world did Christians do, before 1881, and the MV’s?”

same thing they did before 1611 and the kjv. same thing they did before the 1500's and Erasmus putting together the TR)

 

[rbell]

Many here have claimed mulitple times that both the CT and RT are God's preserved word. That is impossible. Either the CT diminished from God's word, or the RT added to it, but they cannot both be preserved and pure. God said he would not only preserve his word, but also that it would be pure, that means without error or corruption. So the CT and RT cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.

Kind of like how either the KJV1611 left part of God's word out of 1 John 5v12 or the KJV1769 added to it?

There cannot both be preserved and pure, without error or corruption, can they?

Which one is corrupt?

If there is going to be a standard it must be consistent across the board.

So the KJV1611 and the KJV1769 cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.

The statement in bold above pretty much covers it.

 

[rbell]

Hello C4K

If Winman doesn’t mind, I will respond to something you asked him.

You asked........

Now I can’t answer for Winman, but for myself, the answer is yes.
--------------------------------------------------

Well, so much for being consistent...

So...KJVO's can change stuff, if it helps clear things up?

Yet, all other versions, even if they do the same thing, are watering down/perverting the word of God?

Well, now....don't think I'll be able to noodle this one out....

 

[Winman]

No, you believe by scientific and scholarly proof that the TR is better than the CT. You believe by faith that God preserved His word.

That is not my attitude whatsoever. Because God repeatedly promised to preserve his pure word to all generations, I believe that the preserved and pure word of God exists and can be identified.

There are basically two texts that could be the preserved and pure word of God, the CT and the RT. By looking at the two, I believe the RT is that preserved and pure word of God. I can't prove that, but that is what I believe.