Legit questions for all

Let me get this straight.....you feel that every single manuscript on the planet is in error in this verse?

Let me ask again: Do you acknowledge that this reading is not found in any manuscript? If not, please state which ancient witness contains it.

If you do acknowledge this reading does not exist, then please explain how a typo from the 16th century corrected 1500 years of God failing to preserve these 2 words?

In reality, it is YOUR stance which states God did not preserve his word!!!!

 

well Jesus spoke in Aramaic what are the meaning of Rev 17: 8 in that language?

 

Did God give His Word to the prophets and apostles in English?

Would you claim that the Holy Spirit did not guide William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the other translators of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision?
Where do the Scriptures teach that the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the translators of these earlier English Bibles was of any different sort or kind than the guiding of the Holy Spirit claimed for the KJV? Did English-speaking believers before 1611 have "a Complete Word Bible?"

If it is claimed that English-speaking believers in 1611 had "a Complete Word Bible," why were over 1800 changes introduced in the text of the KJV since 1611 [in a few cases words were added to the 1611 text and in a few cases words were later omitted that had been in the 1611 text]?

 

There is more than one way to say truth.
Truth can be communicated in several different ways.

If men can find different ways to say things,
then think what God can do!!

Isa 55:8-9 (KJV1611 Edition):
For my thoughtes are not your thoughts,
neither are your wayes my wayes,
sayth the Lord.
9 For as ye heauens are higher then the earth,
so are my wayes higher then your wayes,
and my thoughtes aboue your thoughts.

55:8-9 (HCSB = Holman Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not My ways."
[This is] the Lord's declaration.

9 "For as heaven is higher than earth,
so My ways are higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts."

God has one and only one begotten Son - the Bible says it.
God does not have one and only one Bible in English - no
Bible says it.

I make the logical assumption that God has provided multiple
translations in English so we can have enhansed knowledge of
His Inerran Written Word, the Holy Bible.

My logical assumption makes me so much better than
those who make illogical logical assumptions -- tee hee,
who is kiddin' whom?

 

Textual criticism as a whole has no basis in biblical fact. You have to hold yourself to the same standard. Your position is no more scripturally defensible than mine.

The basis for my version preference is faith in the facts that surround the textual issue. The issue is the text not the translation. The proper translation is a byproduct of the proper text.

 

Problem with that approach Pastor Bob is that those who translated the NKJV used the same basic transcript and text as those who translated the 1611.

The second problem is that I am not in the group claiming that there is only one legitimate English translation of the Scripture. If I were then I would be proclaiming a doctrine and that doctrine would need biblical basis. KJVOism is a man-made doctrine with no biblical basis. I love the KJV, I believe it is a great translation of the Scripture, I cannot accept nor tolerate anyone attacking the Word of God in another version than they prefer. BTW--I have never seen you do that Pastor Bob so that comment is not meant for you but for those who are rabid KJVoist who speak against the Scripture in the NKJV, NIV, RSV, NASB.

Bro Tony

 

God created the heavens and the earth. In doing that he created you with a brain to use to have dominion over the earth. He also gave you the ability to think and reason. Otherwise you would be no different than a cow or pig running your life at the base level of instinct. Is that not biblical?

 

All you want is manuscript evidences because you focus on these MATERIALS rathar THAN focusing on HOW God provided us His CERTAIN WORDS for our mother tongue. God provided His Book, namely the KJV, to English-speaking people.

When you prove manuscript evidences and show that KJVO is wrong, you show yourself no faith. An example is a search for Noah's Ark. If you want manuscript evidence, YOU GO and search for Noah's Ark.

Look at KJVOs -- They focus on HOW God preserved His CERTAIN Words for each nation THAN manuscript evidences. They BY FAITH believe in God's CERTAIN Words for our mother tongue -- the KJV. They believe in the Preservation of God's Holy Scriptures because they will not go to search for Noah's Ark. They by faith believe on the story of Noah's Ark in that Book, namely the KJV because they never saw a real Noah's Ark in their eyes. Therefore they BELIEVE in the Bible than manuscript evidences. They have MUCH FAITH.

When KJVOs focus on HOW God preserved His CERTAIN Words for us, they have MUCH faith in His Words as what Pastor Bob obviously pointed in his previous post.

 

Amen, AskJo!

 

Faith in God's words? Or faith that a certain group of men were the only ones to accurately record God's words?

This is an old see-saw, and it is getting really tiresome.

God spoke. Men recorded. Writings were passed down. Men translated... be it 400 years ago, 1400 years ago, or 4 years ago.

But to cling to faith in a BOOK instead of what is in that BOOK? Give me a break!

It doesn't matter if it is the KJV, NKJV, NIV, or whatever... the main thing is to have faith in God and what He has said. Not whether He sounds like He lived in Elizabethan England.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Please explain to me how the KJV translators made the KJV, if it was not be the EXACT SAME PROCESS than what I am using, and what Dr. Cass uses, and all others here use: weighing the availible evidence, and making a decision. Where do they claim that God inspired their translation? Where did God say he did? Since you will not provide any reference for either, who put YOU in charge to overrule the word of both God and the authors?

I think that claim has already been debunked. Is it "faith" when that faith is in a lie? If so, then I think we all should convert to Mormonism. Otherwise, you resorting to this type of argument basically admits that you know Rev. 17:8 is an error, and will not discuss it.

Focus? Or INVENT? Listen, Askjo, if the reading found in the KJV is a typo, then it is an error. If it is not found in any manuscript in history, then it cannot be God's word. Seriously, its not that difficult to understand.

Now, before you resort to the straw-man again, will you address the question? Is there a manuscript which contains the reading? If not, then please explain how this reading can be authentic. Do you understand?

Apples and oranges, since God chose not to preserve any trace of the Ark, yet he chose to leave for us many manuscripts of the Bible. Otherwise, the KJV translators would have simply been guessing as to what the bible said. Why do you reject their philosophy of translation?

Did I miss something? Are the manuscripts no longer the bible?

Interesting, so would you disagree with a Geneva Only group? Why or why not?

 

Askjo:All you want is manuscript evidences because you focus on these MATERIALS rathar THAN focusing on HOW God provided us His CERTAIN WORDS for our mother tongue. God provided His Book, namely the KJV, to English-speaking people.

Howdya know God is limited to the KJV in English? Ya DON'T, do ya? So, you're just GUESSING.

When you prove manuscript evidences and show that KJVO is wrong, you show yourself no faith.

Wrong.

BIBLICAL faith consists of SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE.(Hebrews 11:1) neither of which is found in the KJVO myth.


An example is a search for Noah's Ark. If you want manuscript evidence, YOU GO and search for Noah's Ark.

Nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Look at KJVOs -- They focus on HOW God preserved His CERTAIN Words for each nation THAN manuscript evidences.

No, they focus on the guesswork and conjectures invented by MEN, ignoring the fact that there's no Scriptural support for the KJVO myth.

They BY FAITH believe in God's CERTAIN Words for our mother tongue -- the KJV.

BLIND faith, not BIBLICAL faith.


They believe in the Preservation of God's Holy Scriptures because they will not go to search for Noah's Ark. They by faith believe on the story of Noah's Ark in that Book, namely the KJV because they never saw a real Noah's Ark in their eyes.[/i]

The story of Noah's ark is found in every valid Bible version, and some not so valid. The KJV has no monopoly on this story.

Therefore they BELIEVE in the Bible than manuscript evidences. They have MUCH FAITH.

But without the manuscripts, we'd have no Bible. Those mss served as the Bibles for ancient people. Jesus died for the people of the 100s as well as for those of the 2000s.

When KJVOs focus on HOW God preserved His CERTAIN Words for us, they have MUCH faith in His Words as what Pastor Bob obviously pointed in his previous post.

No, they're only guessing that Wilkinson, Ray , Ruckman, Fuller, Cloud, Gipp, Riplinger, etc. are right. never mind they have no evidence nor SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even from the KJV itself.

This lack of evidence is why the questions were asked. If we accept a theory about Scripture that's NOT SUPPORTED by Scripture, nor by any secular evidence either, then we'd be susceptible to the latest frauds...er...fads such as this Da Vinci Codes garbage.

Summary...KJVO is a myth, unsupported by any evidnce. But...One can use the KJV as his/her only Bible version w/o wearing the dead bird of the KJVO myth around the neck.

 

Did God give His Word to the prophets and apostles in English?

Would you claim that the Holy Spirit did not guide William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the other translators of the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision?
Where do the Scriptures teach that the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the translators of these earlier English Bibles was of any different sort or kind than the guiding of the Holy Spirit claimed for the KJV? Did English-speaking believers before 1611 have "a Complete Word Bible?"

If it is claimed that English-speaking believers in 1611 had "a Complete Word Bible," why were over 1800 changes introduced in the text of the KJV since 1611 [in a few cases words were added to the 1611 text and in a few cases words were later omitted that had been in the 1611 text]? </font>[/QUOTE]SURE BUT ARE THOSE CONCIDERED Modernists versions I think not! People will say " We dont yalk like that any more"? that is a Cop out if I ever heard one! I can read the KJB just fine! The Question to you my friend is! Are there Errors in the MV's Yea or Nae?

 

I think I will invest in a better monitor I have a scratch right in the middle of the screen and its hard to proof read every word ! The above word should be Talk! thank you for your patience!

 

Very interresting statement! Altough if I want a map to Mount Ararat and How to get there and the topographer goofed up and the map is WRONG theI might end up in Istambull! Just like if i am syudying About when David Slew Goliath and the NIV says that Davids Brother killed Him I might Have a problem when I am Quized on the matter! We do not need many versions just the Correct Map with the correct heading and coordinance!Amen the thing is that I beleive that we can still agree to disagree but still show brotherly Kindness! I will try to show evidence that proves that the KJB in English is and will be the source where I can draw from and get fed!

 

The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']. The first rule for the Church of England translators of the KJV was: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

The KJV translators made the same type changes in the earlier English Bibles as later translators of the same underlying texts made in the KJV. Sometimes the KJV has fewer words in the text than one or more of the earlier English Bibles, and other times the KJV has more words. Sometimes the KJV updated an archaic word in some of the earlier English Bibles, and other times the KJV used or kept an archaic word that had already been updated in the Geneva Bible or another earlier English Bibles. The KJV also sometimes changed the meaning of many words in the earlier English Bibles.

If those qualities claimed for the KJV were supposedly missing or lacking somewhat in the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, how were those qualities transferred from those earlier English Bibles to the KJV?

 

Faith in God's words? Or faith that a certain group of men were the only ones to accurately record God's words?

This is an old see-saw, and it is getting really tiresome.

God spoke. Men recorded. Writings were passed down. Men translated... be it 400 years ago, 1400 years ago, or 4 years ago.

But to cling to faith in a BOOK instead of what is in that BOOK? Give me a break!

It doesn't matter if it is the KJV, or whatever... the main thing is to have faith in God and what He has said. Not whether He sounds like He lived in Elizabethan England.

In Christ,
Trotter </font>[/QUOTE]Yes but He did! So we can count on the time in when it was written! But can we count on the times of today where evil is waxing worse and worse! Lets look at some more Evidence! If we that are saved will fall for every wind of doctorine then we are doomend! Why is Old time religion fading and the Modern way seems to be Flurishing it cant be Because of the
NKJV, NIV, But because God is still in control no matter how bad it gets! If I STUDY OUT OF DIFFRENT VERSIONS then I am easily ammused in what the world has to offer, because I Am not really sure in what to trust because If it such a BIG deal then it is either right or left&gt; I will stick to the right. Now if you live in South Africa you may stick to the left, I am sure they preach out of the KJB to, just Kidding, and out of differnt versions to. Some maybe sincerely wrong in why the choose to do so! If the only reason is that the MV's are easier to read then that is the WRONG reason!

 

Can we get a translator in here? My pig latin is rusty.....

 

I have a 12th grade education with 2 years of technical school! What is you Question?