Perfect Bible

At the risk of pointing out what should be obvious, it could equally well be said that the variation was actually introduced by the Byzantine family of manuscripts. Notice how you very subtly (but not subtly enough) slipped in your presupposition without adequate proof of it.

Though I can't answer for anyone else, all the evidence (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Caesearean, etc.) is preserved. YOu take it by faith that your have chosen the right ones. There is no conclusive evidence to support you. There is only faith based acceptance of probability. For those of us on the other side, there is likewise no conclusive evidence. There is only faith based acceptance of probability.

Why is it like this? Because God, in his wisdom, ordained it to be such. Therefore, we accept it without running the other side out of Christianity. We wish that your side would do the same.

 

Pastor Larry,

I think you grasped the essence of my point correctly. Whether one family of manuscripts is the preserved words, or the whole lot of manuscripts is the preserved Word, either position is one of faith and not fact. That is the point I was trying to make with Scott. It is a fact there is a multitude of varying manuscripts, it is a fact scripture promises preservation, but particular methods of preservation are taken by faith.

I do not believe that it is God’s preferential will that we have the great scriptural variation introduced with Alexandrian manuscripts and modern textual criticism. Obviously it is in His permissive will, but I do not believe it is His desire (my opinion).

Personally, I take on faith that God preserved his words through a line of manuscripts which culminated into the KJB and other Bibles translated from the KJB or its predecessors. Some take on faith that the entire body of manuscripts and translations represents a more general preservation of what might be termed “God’s Word”. I have no desire to run you or Scott out of Christendom. In the final analysis we will agree to disagree, debate within the confines of God’s guidelines for conduct, and continue to preach and teach.

 

Personally, I take on faith that God preserved his words through a line of manuscripts which culminated into the KJB and other Bibles translated from the KJB or its predecessors.

I can accept the idea that the line of manuscripts used by the KJV are "preserved". However, I don't think it's a good idea to come out with a bible using the KJV as a source. The KJV is a translation of a copy of original manuscripts. A translation based on the KJV would be a translation of a translation of a copy of the original manuscripts. Translations shold endeavour to use the first link in the chain, so to speak.

We already have that problem with the NT, something which will never be resolved. The original words of Jesus were spoken in Aramaic. But the NT authors penned their words in Greek. The Greek was then translated into English by contemporary translators. So we have an English translation of a copy of Greek menuscript, which is in effect, a Greek translation of Aramaic verbage.

 

My understanding of the conversation was that this is what Scott was saying but I will let him speak for himself. When someone says that the preserved word of God is one version or one manuscript or one family of manuscripts, that is not fact. That is faith. And that is the distinction that we must maintain.

But the variation was not introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts. They are older than the Byzantine. The evidence is at least as strong that the variation came from the Byzantine manuscripts. Don't read your presupposition into your argument.

 

John,

I'm glad you and I can agree on something. It gets tiresome continually arguing. I understand your concern. In my view I have seen alot of variation in translation to English, even where the source manuscripts agree, so I'm not convinced that going back to the Hebrew and Greek solves the problem. Given the option, and being English speaking as my native tongue, I would probably take the approach that was taken with the KJB. I would base the translation on the preserved line (I know this is debatable) of manuscripts, and compare it to faithful English versions, in this case, the KJB. Understand my position John, since I believe the KJB is the preserved word in my tongue, I would give its renderings great weight. Based on my view of preservation I believe a translation from the KJB would render an accurate literal copy of God’s Word since it is part of the preserved line. Beyond all debate about source information, I believe there are literally thousands of places in the Bible that require spiritual discernment, and not necessarily intellect or knowledge, to translate correctly. I believe first and foremost that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew does not equip someone to create a translation. God’s hand must be there for the correct rendering of what He has to say.

 

Pretty much. I actually wouldn't equate faith with probability though. If I said that I was 75% sure that the UBS4 text was the perfect restoration of the originals then obviously I would be 25% uncertain. This is a statement of probability. If I said the UBS4 is the perfect restoration of the originals then that 25% of uncertainty is covered by pure faith. In fact, the 75% part doesn't matter anymore either since presupposition has replaced proof. This wouldn't necessarily qualify as faith either- more like superstition.

I probably should have gone to our respective premises with FFF before now.

I believe that both the NASB and KJV can rightly be called the Word of God. They are both a direct result of God's preservation of textual evidence. FFF would probably assign some lower rung of respect to the NASB, I would not. He would probably say that either the traditional texts or the critical texts must be right and the other wrong- I would not. I personally have doubts about modern textual criticism's assumptions. At the same time, I doubt very seriously that anyone has reproduced the precise wording of the original in every detail.

In short, I think FFF expects preservation to guarantee a single, perfectly worded Bible. I don't hold that expectation but rather that God has preserved His revelation completely for us today without particular respect for the words used to communicate it.

 

Pastor Larry,

You said: “When someone says that the preserved word of God is one version or one manuscript or one family of manuscripts, that is not fact. That is faith. And that is the distinction that we must maintain”.

I would just point out that it is also faith to believe that God’s preserved His word in a multitude of varying manuscripts, right?

You said: “But the variation was not introduced by the Alexandrian manuscripts. They are older than the Byzantine. The evidence is at least as strong that the variation came from the Byzantine manuscripts. Don't read your presupposition into your argument”.

Now this is the other area of faith. Just because the extant manuscripts are older, does not necessarily mean they’re closer to the originals, right?

 

It is faith to say that God did it. It is simply observation to say that this is how the Bible was preserved.

 

I would base the translation on the preserved line (I know this is debatable) of manuscripts, and compare it to faithful English versions, in this case, the KJB. Understand my position John, since I believe the KJB is the preserved word in my tongue, I would give its renderings great weight.

That would open up a can of worms. For example, the KJV uses the word "brass" in several places in the OT. But brass had not yet come into existence. The correct translation is "bronze" which is what was commonly used and known about in the OT. Should a person using the KJV as a translational source stick to "brass", knowing full well that this contradicts the KJV source manuscripts, or use "bronze" , knowing that this will contradict the KJV translation?

 

Scott,

I don't believe it is simple observation, it is faith. You and I can agree on the facts about manuscripts and history, but our interpretation of those facts can be entirely different. My belief is no more unreasonable than saying God preserved Himself a people out of all of humanity. Someone who is a universalist might say, we are all God's people, different in religious practice, but we all worship the same God. Now I know you do not believe this, but this illustrates the way I look at manuscripts. Just because they all exist does not mean they are all His. All I ask is that you understand my position. You and I can agree on established facts in their raw form, but interpretation of their meaning is something different entirely.

 

As Scott said, it is a matter of observation. We can see that he preserved his word in the multitude of manuscripts. My point is that to say he did it in only one line or family, or worse yet--only one text of that family, is not fact, as some seem to believe it is. Many have preached the authority of the TR or MajT as a revealed truth or fact when, in fact (no pun intended), it is not. It is a preference based on faith. We who hold to the superiority of the eclectic method have equal footing in the discussion.

No, not right. They are closer in terms of time, and the evidence shows that the farther something gets from the original, the more it gets distorted. We must remember the axiom: 100 copies of an error does not make it less an error. That MajT proponents dispense with this too easily, IMO. Age has its virtues and should be accorded adequate weight. It should not be dismissed simply because it disagress. We must ask Why it disagrees and What reading best accounts for the others.

 

Pastor Larry,

I thought we were close to agreement for once, but obviously that is not so. I think it is key for all MV proponents like yourself to understand that you are not following the facts, your are following the faith (your interpretation) you put in the facts. For example, the debate over manuscripts can be summed up very simply: older is better versus consider the source. Now it is probably a fact that the extant Alexandrian manuscripts are older, but it is your faith that they are better. The sources for these manuscripts are highly questionable, as well as the immense number of discrepancies they bring into the body of manuscript evidence. You believe that they are better because they are older; I believe they are not because of the sources involved and way God used the received text. No, this is not a simple matter of observation; this is a matter of interpretation of observations. This was my original point which I thought you understood and agreed with and said Scott agreed with. Without this basic understanding we can have no intelligent discussion of the issue. Now you can contend your belief, or faith, or interpretation, whatever you want to call it, is right and mine is wrong, you can say that and we can debate that. But you cannot say you follow fact and I follow belief, this is simply not true. We both follow belief in how we interpret the raw facts. You must remember that your axiom involves assumptions based on your faith. You have assumed that the older manuscripts were not deliberate corruptions. That is core to the issue of the belief I am pointing to. I am trying very hard to be reasonable with you and find common ground. I believe what I am pointing out is a very basic fact. Can we not agree that we both accept our views of scripture preservation on faith?

 

I think the issue of preserved texts and modern translations are two entirely different issues.

If you believe that the text used by the KJV is the only preserved text, then it stands to reason that any translation that uses the same text can make the same claim as the KJV (for example, the NKJV).

If you believe that preservation applies to several texts, then any translation based on any of the texts in question carries no greater weight than any other, other than that of being a "better: translation than another.

If you do not believe that the preservation verse applies to a preserved text, then the whole point is moot.

If you believe that a specific translation is preserved, but the text it was translated from is not, youare engaging in the biblically forbidden practice of adding to God's word.

All these point of view, except for the last one, is biblically supportable, depending on interpretation.

 

This is what I said, FFF, and it is the same for you. You are not following facts; you are following faith. The fact is that there are over 5000 manuscripts that God has preserved. That is undeniable. It is also undeniable fact that none of those 5000+ manuscripts is identical to another one. The faith comes in at the point of selecting some manuscripts over others. You have chosen certain traditions by faith; I have chosen certain others by faith. That faith may be more informed or less informed, but it is nonetheless faith. That is what I said from the beginning.

But it is your faith that the sources are corrupt (unless you have seen the sources, in which case please make them public so that the textual scholars can see them as well). I believe the sources of your preferred texts are highly questionable. That is my belief and it is contrary to your belief. Neither position can be established as "fact" without question. They are both subject to postives and negatives.

This is true. But that is not what I said was a simple matter of observation. The simple matter of observation is that all these manuscripts have been preserved. You cannot say that the Alexandrian manuscripts were not preserved. They most certainly were. You reject them because of your belief about them. However, that does not deny the fact that they still exist.

I did not say that.

I stipulated that years ago in forums that are long since gone from here. I have never said anything else. In fact, it has been my constant plea for the other side to realize this. God did not see fit to establish as "fact" which of the families of manuscripts, or individual manuscripts are the "perfect copy of the original documents"--the autographa. So we accept by learned faith one or the other but must be careful not to drive orthodox positions out of Christianity.

 

If you people such as: Homebound, JDY, FFF, and the like want to hold to an outdated translation, such as the KJV, you certainly have the right to do so. If you want to base your beliefs on personal emotion and twisted doctrine, you certainly have the right to do so. However, do not expect others to agree with your translation philosophy.

We have all heard your dripple over and over and guess what? We aren't buying it.

[edited for spelling]

[ April 25, 2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Terry_Herrington ]

 

What raw facts do you accept? During this discussion, I don't think I have advocated one particular text as the text... that would be an interpretation and one that extends well past what the facts allow.

 

Pastor Larry,

I appreciate your post. Evidently we do agree after all that there is a difference between fact and faith (or interpretation). I would like to clarify one thing. When you said: “The fact is that there are over 5000 manuscripts that God has preserved”, please note that saying God is responsible for the preservation of all of them would be an interpretation. As you know, I believe the Alexandrian line was not preserved by God. I agree they were preserved, but I do not agree on who is responsible for the preservation. This represents a difference in our beliefs. I agree that it is factual that the manuscripts do exists and therefore were preserved. I also agree that God at the very least “allowed” them to be preserved. I stop short of believing that it is His preferential will to preserve them and reintroduce them after 1500 years. As I said, this is my belief, and we differ here.

Terry,

It seems you are the one using “personal emotion” in this thread. It is interesting that your blanket condemnation of KJBOs condemns you (condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned). While Larry and I have been drawing distinctions between fact and faith, you have now shown the negative aspect of feeling drawn from personal bias. It would be very easy for me to insult you (with words like twisted) and others that hold your view with the same or similar rhetoric you used. Please feel free to add something of value to the discussion, otherwise stop sowing discord.

 

So, given your theology on this matter, God preserved it to tempt people with evil. Is that it? Go back and read James 1. It is clear in even the KJV.

Btw, why does the KJV call God pitiful in James?

Is it because the Anglican (romanist in disguise) think they have to help with salvation? They are evil and corrupt.

 

I think all things, no matter what, are here because God is actively working to uphold the universe. The reason these texts are not gone like many other ancient documents are, is the preserving work of God.

Perhaps the reason he preserved them and allowed them to be "reintroduced" after 1500 years was to ensure that we have his word today. After all, the age of printing and copying had come and hand copying was no longer the sole means. Thus, preserving some back from usage during those years provided us with perhaps something that we otherwise would not have had.

It is important to remember that your position is a belief on this, just as mine is.