KJV and the modern versions

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: It is important to note that the Bible was not written with verse or chapter deliniations. It was not even written in sentences. Read the entire passage in ANY translation and you will get the truth.

HP: An interesting thought Ann. Then why in the world have I witnessed a thousand times over from the pulpit and over the air waves that verse used to deny that it is possible for a believer to have condemnation? If in fact the truth of the verse is set forth as it is in God’s Word, ‘only those walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh’ could be free from condemnation, again, according to the clear teaching of the Word of God. Why is the doctrine set forth clearly by some in direct opposition to this passage? Certainly the theories of modern translators and critics add fuel to a false notion with their elimination of this portion of the Word of God.

Here again is the Word of God, regardless of the manuscripts one can find to the contrary. If you do not have that kind of God-inspired faith in the manuscript(s) or trnaslations you follow, I would suggest you find one that God’s Spirit will testify the truth to your heart in such a way that no translator cutting and pasting, theorizing about the proper translation process, can never sow a seed of doubt in your mind again. . Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Bear in mind that 95% of all available manuscripts agree with the text used by the KJV trnaslators.

I fully believe that if the theorizing of textual criticism W&H and other modern translators would ever succumb to a scientific inquiry as attempted by men such as Burgon, the theories used by W&H and others would crumble as a sand castle in a rising tide.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Your personal attack is clearly noted. Try honoring the rules of this forum by setting aside such unkind and unsupported personal attacks, and instead take a specific issue you feel that I am in error and are misleading others on, verify that it is true concerning my beliefs, and then set forth clear evidence to the contrary as one should do in any reasonable debate.

You didn't clearly note my personal attack because I made none. Please do not say I did. I have shown a number of things on which you are in error.

Then why in the world have I witnessed a thousand times over from the pulpit and over the air waves that verse used to deny that it is possible for a believer to have condemnation? If in fact the truth of the verse is set forth as it is in God’s Word, ‘only those walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh’ could be free from condemnation, again, according to the clear teaching of the Word of God. Why is the doctrine set forth clearly by some in direct opposition to this passage?

This verse in either rendering agrees. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Those in Christ Jesus are marked by the way that they walk. That is clear in teh passage.

Certainly the theories of modern translators and critics add fuel to a false notion with their elimination of this portion of the Word of God.

This is simply false.

Here again is the Word of God, regardless of the manuscripts one can find to the contrary.

On what basis do you clear a particular rendering to be the Word of God? Why do you eliminate other things that God has preserved for us?

If you do not have that kind of God-inspired faith in the manuscript(s) or trnaslations you follow, I would suggest you find one that God’s Spirit will testify the truth to your heart in such a way that no translator cutting and pasting, theorizing about the proper translation process, can never sow a seed of doubt in your mind again.

You seem to be the only one with doubt here. I know that I have no doubt.

Bear in mind that 95% of all available manuscripts agree with the text used by the KJV trnaslators.

So if 95% of manuscripts said that Jesus was the devil would they be correct? Of course not, thereby showing that truth is not up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. What matters is what God said.

I fully believe that if the theorizing of textual criticism W&H and other modern translators would ever succumb to a scientific inquiry as attempted by men such as Burgon, the theories used by W&H and others would crumble as a sand castle in a rising tide.

Many have tried long before you and have failed.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: So if 95% of manuscripts said that Jesus was the devil would they be correct? Of course not, thereby showing that truth is not up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. What matters is what God said.

HP: Hello list? What do you think?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hello list? What do you think?

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that if 95% of manuscripts said Jesus was the devil, he would be the devil? That's the only alternative to my question, so far as I can see.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed Edwards:
"These three Bibles are somewhat unclear about which 'Spirit' or 'spirit' to walk after. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion? It is my opinion that the KJV1611 Edition is WRONG to put 'spirit' when the Word of God said 'Spirit'. Somebody caught that mistaken error by the KJV1769 time and put 'Spirit' back in. I an many other others say that the KJV1611 had the wrong word there in Romans 8:1. What is your (the one who desires to respond) opinion?"

GE:
There is nothing wrong with 'spirit', for it is assumed the 'spirit' of the regenerate or reborn man --- who was born of the Spirit, with a capital letter, the 'Holy Spirit'. NOW, that man thus born again by the Spirit, 'walks' or 'acts' or 'lives' according to that new principle of divine life within him, and he "walks after the spirit". Note, I wrote 'divine', not 'Divine' --- same thing.

IMHO 'spirit' is not equal to 'Spirit'.

Things that are different are not the same. There is a difference here. Which one is right?
The above statement is false:

The below statement is true:
Amen, Brother Gerhard Ebersoehn -- Preach it! :thumbs:

The above statement is true

The below statement is true:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Follow Steaver's new thread, 'Born of God'.

Hot link to Steaver's new thread: 'Born of God' :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=54021

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: So if 95% of manuscripts said that Jesus was the devil would they be correct? Of course not, thereby showing that truth is not up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. What matters is what God said.

HP: Does anyone besides me smell a dead fish of the red herring nature? :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Perhaps you should put that sentence here?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=50220&page=7

which is at:
Games Forum Mix your Metaphors here

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

For the benefit of the reader, there are some excellent sources that discuss in detail the whole matter of textual criticism we have been discussing. I especially like three books by David Otis Fuller, D.D. entitled, “Which Bible,” “True or False?” and “Counterfeit or Genuine.” All three are written in an easy to read and easy to comprehend style that gets to the very heart of the matter we are discussing. I consider them must reads on the issue.

For the scholars, that like to dig, follow Herman C. Hoskier’s two volume set "CodexB and it's Allies, A Study and An Indictment." They discuss with critical detail the thousands of changes and omissions in differing texts of varying languages, setting forth clear evidence of many issues, including the point that the texts, "BCL" are in reality clear representations of the same text, and are no wise neutral texts whatsoever, but are in fact “purely Egyptian.”

That brings to mind another interesting tid bit of textual retention. Do you suppose that the simple fact of climate in some areas might well be more conducive to the preservation of old manuscripts, while other areas more prone, in moister climates, to a faster decay process? Now that is a profound thought. One that even us laymen can put our arms around. It certainly beats a bunch of unproven man made theories. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: Perhaps you should put that sentence here?

HP: Thanks, but I believe here is fine.:thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
That brings to mind another interesting tid bit of textual retention. Do you suppose that the simple fact of climate in some areas might well be more conducive to the preservation of old manuscripts, while other areas more prone in moister climates to a more rapid decay process? Now that is a profound thought. One that even us laymen can put our arms around. :thumbs:

Yep, Egyptian made 'CT = Critical Texts' spent centuries in dry climates. Byzantine made 'MT = Majority Texts' spent a few hundred years in a soggy Black Sea/Med Sea climate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: Yep, Egyptian made 'CT = Critical Texts' spent centuries in dry climates. Byzantine made 'MT = Majority Texts' spent a few hundred years in a soggy Black Sea/Med Sea climate.

HP: Is that your story? I certainly made no such comment. I was simply referring to a fact of the effects of climate on the deterioration process, setting forth a sound logical and scientifically proven notion why older does not necessitate one manuscript that is older as being better, more accurate, or closer to the truth. It could be a simple matter of where texts were stored and in what climate. It would make sense to me that manuscripts originating in the arid climate of Egypt would certainly be far more apt to survive longer than in other middle eastern climates, if stored in like manner. Are you denying that climate has nothing to do with the preservation of manuscripts? Now that would be an interesting thing to notify the Smithsonian about.:thumbs:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Does anyone besides me smell a dead fish of the red herring nature?

No, you are avoiding the question.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: On what basis do you clear a particular rendering to be the Word of God?

HP: That’s what I appreciate the most about a translation that accords with 95% of the evidence available to the church, and utilize a tried and tested version that has stood every test of the critics for hundreds of years and still serves it well.

Pastor Larry: Why do you eliminate other things that God has preserved for us?

HP: Probably for the same reasons those in the monastery at least tried but obviously in vain to discarded it. It was viewed clearly as a corrupted and untrustworthy text.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/fathers7.htm​

HP: Here are some words by Origen on the Scriptures that certainly have me wondering about his views. I wonder if he had any input into any of the manuscripts such as were used in the formation of the translations influenced greatly by W&H?

​

 

[Ed Edwards]

Consider Origen (c.185-c.254AD) of
Alexandrian. People who think they take
the Bible more literally than others condemn
Origen for saying that there is much in the
Bible which can only be understood
on a spiritual level.

1 Co 2:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the naturall man receiueth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse
vnto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.

Back in his day, a person prosessing faith
in Messiah Yeshua were trained in The Faith
for two years before they were Baptized
(some were martyred prior to Baptism, blowing
the concept you have to do the Work of Baptistm
to get saved.) Origen was a Training Mentor for
new Converts.

When Origen came of age, he literally took
these verses:

Mat 18:8-9 Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foote cause thee
to offend, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better
for thee to enter into life, halt, or maimed, then hauing
two hands, or two feete, to be cast into euerlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye cause thee to offende, plucke it out,
and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter
into life with one eye, then hauing two eyes
to be cast into hell fire.

See also this scripture:
Mat 19:11-12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition)
But he sayd vnto them, All men cannot receiue this thing, saue they to whom it is giuen.
12 For there are some eunuches, which were so borne of their mothers belly: and there be some eunuches, which be gelded by men: and there be some eunuches, which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen. He that is able to receiue this, let him receiue it.

We are talking about a sacrifice here - not an offering! 'Geld' means physical castration. 'Eunuch' means a male who has been physically castrated.

Origen had his sexual members surgically removed
so he would be more interested in Serving
Messiah Yeshua than chasing women.
I really think Origen is condemned for being
way to literal but the words used to condemn
him say things like this passage from the Dictionary
of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996):

Origen's method of exegesis was so subjective that
it allowed for an almost infinite number
of symbolic meanings and interpretations of
the biblical text, most of which bore little resemblance
to the plain meaning of the words.

Origen took Matthew 18:8-9 literal, but is publicity condemned for taking too many things symbolically. That seems strange to me. It is like unto that great Prayer Warrior & Man of Faith, Camel-Knees James who said 'show me your faith by your works'. It is like unto that great man of Works the Apostle Paul who said: "by faith, not of works lest any man should boazst'.

 

[antiaging]

Please apply your logic to the myriads of different KJVs...

Which one is the real KJV.. will the real KJV stand up...

1611
1769
1873

There are 3 that differ from each other...
Using your logic, only one must be the real KJV...
Which one?

There is only one version of the KJV, it is the 1611 Authorized version.
Different editions of that same version came out to standardize spelling, upgrade to more modern English, and add some verses that were left out in the first priniting (a printing error).
The KJV used today is essentially the same as the 1611 version.
There are no revisions of the KJV, only editions.
I use a 1769 edition of the 1611 version of the KJV.

The modern versions, which mix in corrupted manuscripts vaticannus and sinaiticus [property of the vatican] are revisions of the bible. They are different versions.

http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm
Go to that website and read the article of why the KJV we have now is the same as the 1611 version; it is just a new edition of it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Different editions of that same version came out to standardize spelling, upgrade to more modern English, and add some verses that were left out in the first priniting (a printing error).

Thank you for your honesty in admitting that the 1611 was indeed flawed and had to have verse added to it.

 

[antiaging]

This would seem to be your position, concerning your own beliefs, anyway. How consistently you apply those to others is open to debate, I would say. Continuing: Not true, but what is a little falsehood among friends, I guess? The Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) is not, nor has it ever been the "property of the Vatican" and in fact, is in absentia, still totally claimed today as 'the property' of St. Catherine's Monastary, while >4/5 of it is the de facto property of the British Library; ~1/9 is the property of the Universitat Leipzig, with the remainder mostly still at St. Catherine's, with three partial leaves located at the National Library of Russia, in St. Petersburg.Again, not true. There is apparently a very close resemblance, granted, to the DSS and the Massoretic text(s) we have available, but they are not "word for word" identical. One misspelled word alone, makes this claim vanish into thin air. And as the late, great Dean John Burgon worded it, both aptly and succinctly, " 'Very nearly — not quite:' " (My emphasis)

The text similar to the known Massoretic text, just as was the LXX, were both likely availabe to Jesus and the Apostles. However, this claim is "begging the question," in order to avoid answering one that has been asked before, by more than one poster, including myself. I'll ask it again. This happens in Luke 4, in the synagogue where Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah. Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah (Lk. 4:16), and proclaimed it to be Scripture (Lk. 4:21). The words he read do not exactly correspond with any known text of that passage, be it Hebrew, Greek, or any other text in any language, even given translating, that we have any knowledge of, at this time.Your comments here seem similar to those I found of another who basically advocates the same position as you seem to. I will quote his words, here, as they seem appropriate, somehow. Dr. Waite "just don't wanna MOVE, see"; antiaging will "believe whatever I like";

"My mind's made up! Don't disturb me with the facts!"

Sorry, but I do not, and will not accept that motto, from anyone, because Scripture does not! (Rom. 12:1-2)

Ed

Ed, if you would use God's real Word, the KJV, and diligently learn it, as I have, then you would see in there how to obey God's will and not your own will.
I asked God to control what I believe and Know according to His will.
Now if you would use the real Word of God, then you would know how effective that is, if you mix it with faith.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1 John 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.


Psalms 37:5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

However, if you allow your faith to be destroyed by fake bibles, it seems to me you will be doing your own will and not God's will.

After that prayer, what I like is going to be His will. See above scriptures.

Of, course if fake bibles have destroyed your confidence, then how can you have faith and please God?

 

[Pastor Larry]

[quoteHP: That’s what I appreciate the most about a translation that accords with 95% of the evidence available to the church, and utilize a tried and tested version that has stood every test of the critics for hundreds of years and still serves it well. [/quote]Every translation takes into account that 95%. But a few translation omit the rest and ignore it. I find it dangerous to do that.

HP: Probably for the same reasons those in the monastery at least tried but obviously in vain to discarded it. It was viewed clearly as a corrupted and untrustworthy text.

So if they tried in vain to discard it, perhaps that is the hand of God sustaining his word against attacks so that we would have his word it. There is no evidence that surrounding the whole destruction theory of the manuscripts that I know of. I think that is an often repeated fable.

But I can't help but notice you are avoiding the major questions. I think I have shown some pretty serious flaws in your position, and you just ignore them.