KJV vs. Modern Version - II

Pastor Larry, Please my dear sir, show me where I have said that the KJV was the ONLY word of God. I have stated that and only that the newer versions have changed and chopped and dulled the word of God. What's more sir, I believe that you really need to do a whole bunch of growing up. If you feel you need to debate Thomas...do not use me to attack him or the leadership of his Church. I have a brain, given me from God. I am able to have toughts and feelings of my own. Don't assume. Thanks a bunch

Paula

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Now finding out that Paula has been learning under your ministry calls it even more into question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Paula and her husband Matt are Military. They came here about a year ago with positions and convictions developed over years of sitting under a variety of preachers, as is common with most career military families. I don't dictate what members of my congregation think or believe. We may differ on some things, but we rejoice together in the Lord. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, your position on the LXX is most interesting. Apparently you are arguing that Christ didn’t quote from it because the earliest edition we have is 350 AD (I believe you said). So apparently you argue that he can’t have quoted from something that didn’t exist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I said it cannot be proved that the NT quotes from the LXX as we have no extant LXX MSS dating prior to 350AD containing verses quoted in the NT. I have never contended that a Greek NT did not exist, only that we cannot prove that today's LXX existed at the time of Christ. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, there is ample evidence for the existence of the LXX in the first century.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have already posted the extant MSS evidence for the existance of a Greek OT prior to 350AD. If you are aware of any other MSS evidence, please post it for the scholarly world has been searching for centuries for just such evidence.

The rest was snipped for it does not apply to me.

 

My point is this, now watch out cause this is really deep stuff. I have never said, nor never will say that the MV's are not Gods word. I said, I BELIEVE that they have dulled the word of God. When you take the convicting words out of the Bible, and remove titles of Christ such as the "Son of God" and replace it with " Son of Man", you lose the sharpness of your sword. Furthermore, when the translators of a Bible verson aren't professed Christians. And have been quoted as saying they are Gay, there's a problem. We all know what the Bible says about homosexuals. So then if one is one the board, how in the word would the message not be corrupt? Yes, I believe that someone can be saved out of the NIV or other MV's. But you have to understand that it's not you that brings people to the Lord. It's him. He can use anything he sees fit. In fact we see that God is going to use the Anit-Christ to bring the Jews to him. I, me, me myself and I, believe that no other verson should be used to preach about God. I (once again me) believe that the MV's have dulled the convicting sword of God.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point was several fold. 1) Thomas’s position is confusing to some and he should clarify it to those who have missed it; 2) It is surprising to me that Thomas holds the position he does (with which I disagree but as I understand it, it is at least legitimate) and yet there are those under his teaching who hold a an unbiblical position and apparently are not being taught the truth about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

QUESTION: What position might that be Pastor Larry?

QUESTION: How is my view on MV's unbiblical?

QUESTION: How do you know my Pastor hasn't already talked with me about my view on MV's?

Don't assume.



Pastor Larry I have nothing against you either. How..rather I say if you ever got that idea, I sure would like to know how. You can disagree with people without disliking them. I'm not a Bible scholar, nor do I pretend to be one. I don't understand half of what you all talk about in here. But, I do know what I have been shown by countless people about this. And I was trying to talk about it before the insults came down the line, to which I will not reply. (and no I'm not talking about you)

Paula

 

&lt; I,...[silly redundancy]...believe that no other verson should be used to preach about God. &gt;

So you believe anyone anywhere in the world must learn English to have the Word of God?

 

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: livin'intheword ]

 

*sigh*

 

Rockfort, you have to be one of the most hypocritical christians I have ever seen. You come here to a christian Board supposedly to debate and have christian fellowship, yet I have yet to see one post that you have wrote that doesn't attack people with your name calling. I don't know how old you are, but judging from the content of most of your posts you act like you are a little teenage rebellion, and also judging from the content of your posts, you don't have to much knowledge of the Bible and therefore most resort to name calling. If these are not the case I would sure like to see the evidence of that reflected in your future posts. But reality, you will probably attack me with your non edifiying, repulsive name calling also.
I don't know you personaly, and I don't say these things to try to get under your skin and make you even madder at the world, I say them because I really do think that you can overcome this hatred in your heart with some prayer and I do hope that you will. You will probably find find that you will be a much happier person.

God speed.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

Regarding the LXX and quotes made in the NT. When you have quotes in some of the oldest New Testament manuscripts that match, almost word for word quotes from the LXX manuscripts (even though they may be 300 years after Christ). Then either of two occurances are happening. One, it is entirely a coincidence or two, the New Testament was copied with reasonable accuracy and the quotations were made from a document that was itself copied and maintained accurately (LXX).

Dr. Thomas, you have made statements that Jesus did not quote from the Bible that he quoted God's word because he was God. I am not exactly certain this is true. I have a theory that Jesus (although is God) had to grow up with a human brain and emotions that are limited to that of a real human. Maybe I am out of line for saying this, but I feel this might have been a new experience for even the All-Knowing God himself. I think that Jesus grew and learned just like other children did and I also think he had to purposely make decisions not to sin based on human limitations just like us humans. This makes his sacrifice even more precious to me; not degrading to his abilities or capabilities. I believed he read the Bible that was available at the time and history shows us that the LXX was probably the most often used by the Jews of his area during the political influence left by the Greeks. So, therefore, due to the two reasons above; there is no reason not to think that Jesus or other writers of the New Testament did not use the LXX to quote -- especially to Hellinistic Gentiles of the age.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phillip:
. . . history shows us that the LXX was probably the most often used by the Jews of his area during the political influence left by the Greeks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speculation. Pure speculation. There is not one shred of MSS evidence to support this convoluted theory.

You may speculate all you wish, but when you make an assertion based on your speculations, and try to make that a fact, you are being more than disingenuous.

I posted the facts concerning the MSS evidence for a pre 4th century Greek OT. If you have any facts please post them. This is the second time I have asked you for facts concerning a pre-4th century Greek OT. So far you have posted nothing by speculation.

If you have any facts to support your speculation, please post them. If not, then all you are doing is engaging in "are too" - "are not" - "are too" - "are not" type or argumentation which is, in my opinion sophmoric.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by livin'intheword:
My point is this, now watch out cause this is really deep stuff. I have never said, nor never will say that the MV's are not Gods word. I said, I BELIEVE that they have dulled the word of God. When you take the convicting words out of the Bible, and remove titles of Christ such as the "Son of God" and replace it with " Son of Man", you lose the sharpness of your sword. Furthermore, when the translators of a Bible verson aren't professed Christians. And have been quoted as saying they are Gay, there's a problem. We all know what the Bible says about homosexuals. So then if one is one the board, how in the word would the message not be corrupt? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Paula, I am going to disagree and try not to keep this personal. The MV's are based on manuscripts which were put together by scholars who had access to much older documents and many other documents than were available to the KJV translators.

First of all, I am going to tell you something that your pastor will probably disagree with, but here goes. Much of the King James comes from a Bible called the Bishop's Bible. I can clearly show this by printing and scanning actual printed pages in the 1500's of the Bishop's Bible and then scanning and sending you pictures of the same pages in 1611 manuscripts that were printed in 1614. (I can't afford an actual 1611 version, they go for BIG bucks--but I have quite a selection of old Bibles and Bible pages.) Anyway, my point is that the translators did NOT translate the entire KJV from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Now here is my point that has to do with your remarks. The words that are changed in the MV's are changed for a simple reason; and that is the fact that the older documents simply do not translate to the words you are claiming that they leave out. This is a point your pastor should explain to you.

The other point I wish to make is that I doubt very seriously that you can prove that the English translators were all Christians, were not gay or were sinners or not. They are definitely not from the "Baptist Doctrine Stream" and were very unlikely to be good Christian men. That is simply my opinion, not a judgment because these men have been dead for 300 years (actually the real translators--much longer than that when you look at the Bishop's Bible). So, the argument about the NIV is useless when the same argument cannot be proven in regards to the KJV. That old argument with the NIV and the gay editor has been hashed around so much that it is old hat. If you are going to use KJVO arguments, then you need to s**** that one. The editor in question had no responsibility, nor did any specific translation or changes to the NIV. Although, I do not think the NIV is a very good version, why don't we discuss other versions like the NASB or the ESV which I think will fit the bill of a better MV. (Read posts on ESV.)

In answer to your quesiton, how in the world would the message not be corrupt? Well, I ask the same of the KJV due to the doctrine of the translators in England. . . The reason the message may not be corrupt is that scholars do their job of translating and sending copies of those translations before many many committees where they are reviewed and studied for accuracy, readability among continuity. They are only translating. The big argument against MVs is the original documents. See my new post on the Alexandrian documents.
God Bless.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyway, my point is that the translators did NOT translate the entire KJV from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


A blatant lie of course. I would expect better from you phillp. Just because two Bibles read pretty much the same does not mean they were copied from each other, just that the translations in those pasages were the same. If translated correctly, all Bibles should read pretty much the same.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now here is my point that has to do with your remarks. The words that are changed in the MV's are changed for a simple reason; and that is the fact that the older documents simply do not translate to the words you are claiming that they leave out. This is a point your pastor should explain to you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very simply explained, the older mss's are somewhat corrupt and tampered with. Show me proof that the older mss's were better.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The other point I wish to make is that I doubt very seriously that you can prove that the English translators were all Christians, were not gay or were sinners or not. They are definitely not from the "Baptist Doctrine Stream" and were very unlikely to be good Christian men. That is simply my opinion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Opinions are something that comes pretty cheap, don't ya think?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Although, I do not think the NIV is a very good version <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Very much in agreement with you there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In answer to your quesiton, how in the world would the message not be corrupt? Well, I ask the same of the KJV due to the doctrine of the translators in England. . . The reason the message may not be corrupt is that scholars do their job of translating and sending copies of those translations before many many committees where they are reviewed and studied for accuracy, readability among continuity. They are only translating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but there is a very big difference in translation something for the glory of God and translating something for the purpose of having the next big hit seller, which most mv's are all about.

[ November 22, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:



A blatant lie of course. I would expect better from you phillp. Just because two Bibles read pretty much the same does not mean they were copied from each other, just that the translations in those pasages were the same. If translated correctly, all Bibles should read pretty much the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joey, please don't step down to the level of calling somebody names. I thought I had made myself clear that my studies are just that, theories, just as yours are. If you say this is a blatant lie, then show me your studies that indicate that the KJV is NOT an upgrade of the Bishop's Bible. Also, like I said, it is difficult for many many pages and paragraphs to turn out exactly the same when two translators are used. Just look at any translation of any major book. It is probably somewhat more than coincidental that so many parts of the Bishop's Bible (and other early English translations) match very closely to the King James in a LOT of areas. So, please don't call me a liar on something you cannot prove.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:
Very simply explained, the older mss's are somewhat corrupt and tampered with. Show me proof that the older mss's were better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, common sense would indicate that the newer manuscripts which have been copied by hand over and over again would have had more opportunity to be corrupted or tampered with than older manuscripts. The burdeon of proof is on you to prove that the older documents have been tampered with since it makes little sense.

Historical manuscripts show multiple changes added in the fourth and fifth centuries; however, let me make one very important statement here: None of the changes that you refer to when the final critically compiled documents used for the MVs and the Byzantine texts change any of the Biblical doctrine and the notion that the texts are watered-down is simply incorrect because if you read both texts in their original languages you will find the words used in place of the words removed mean the same. If the words were removed and not added or changed then the words probably did NOT exist in the original texts at all and were added at a later date by well-meaning Christians who wanted to try to add strength to the documents. This is even noted in two places in the King James Bible itself where additions in later years were obviously made and footnotes in the King James point this discrepency out. Do you accept these as the unchanged word of God or not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>---My post----
The other point I wish to make is that I doubt very seriously that you can prove that the English translators were all Christians, were not gay or were sinners or not. They are definitely not from the "Baptist Doctrine Stream" and were very unlikely to be good Christian men. That is simply my opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----Joey's post-----
Opinions are something that comes pretty cheap, don't ya think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it is an opinion based on common sense and not conjecture. What is YOUR opinion of the English translators salvation, Christianity and life-styles? Can you provide me with historical proof that they were all Christians, that there were no closet gays included, that all of the translators lived Godly lives? If not, then we have the same problem and this argument then becomes a moot issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>----my post-----
Although, I do not think the NIV is a very good version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----Joey's Post-----
Very much in agreement with you there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, we do agree, but probably not for the same reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>----My Post
In answer to your quesiton, how in the world would the message not be corrupt? Well, I ask the same of the KJV due to the doctrine of the translators in England. . . The reason the message may not be corrupt is that scholars do their job of translating and sending copies of those translations before many many committees where they are reviewed and studied for accuracy, readability among continuity. They are only translating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Joey's Post-----------
Yes, but there is a very big difference in translation something for the glory of God and translating something for the purpose of having the next big hit seller, which most mv's are all about.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strawman argument, totally irrelevant. If I am not mistaken, most translations are printed by companies which are non-profit organizations. By the way, (not to help you with your KJVO position, but to prove my point that this argument is not appropriate) KJV Bibles have consistently been enormous money makers all the way up through the present time for those companies that still print them. Oft times they may sell it as a student study Bible or put a new twist on it, but it usually is simplly the KJV because they make more profit if they don't have to pay for a copyright. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

Let me talk a minute about copyrights. They are used for TWO reasons. Number one; is to provide funding to support the enormous cost to hire highly qualified individuals to provide skills that they make a living with and need to be paid because they have bills to pay just like we do.

Number two; copyrights are used to protect the document from unauthorized changes. This same thing is used in the software world often--even the public-domain software contains a special copyright notice that allows changes, but only if they are documented and proper credit is given. Therefore, blaming companies for making a living (or profit) is a poor argument that the King James Version is superior for any reason. I wouldn't use that argument in court, if I were you. It won't hold up.

[ November 22, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:

If you have any facts to support your speculation, please post them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, You have no proof that your LXX is strictly from 300 AD. (Speculation, pure speculation. &lt;--see I have a sense of humor.) I gave you my proof in the fact that the KJV and LXX use the very same words so often in the New Testament that it is clear and obvious that the LXX existed in Jesus time.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> God Bless--I will be praying especially for you Dr. Cassidy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This would be a good statement had it been said in love, yet it is a self righteous statement as it was said otherwise.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:



This would be a good statement had it been said in love, yet it is a self righteous statement as it was said otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

God bless you and I will pray for you too.

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Phillip ]