Perfect Transation/Copy

[jbh28]

Basics
Does the Bible teach that God gave us His words? Yes it does!
Does the Bible teach that the words are inerrant and truth? Yes it does!
Does the Bible teach that the words will be preserved? Yes it does!

Does the Bible teach that the copyist would be free from making mistakes? No. To say such it to ignore evidence(no two manuscripts are alike). Also, the Bible doesn't say how the words will be preserved, but only that they will be preserved.

I believe at this point, those of you that are kjvo will agree with me. If not, let me know.

The problem
Does the Bible teach that translations would be free from textual and translational errors? I say no.

If a perfect translation is required, then where was the Bible before 1611? Sam Gipp even admits it wasn't in a perfect translation in his "The Answer Book" question 13. He says that it was "available Antiochian manuscripts." If it wasn't before, then why does inerrancy require a perfect translation now?

 

[Winman]

Basics
Does the Bible teach that God gave us His words? Yes it does!
Does the Bible teach that the words are inerrant and truth? Yes it does!
Does the Bible teach that the words will be preserved? Yes it does!

Does the Bible teach that the copyist would be free from making mistakes? No. To say such it to ignore evidence(no two manuscripts are alike). Also, the Bible doesn't say how the words will be preserved, but only that they will be preserved.

I believe at this point, those of you that are kjvo will agree with me. If not, let me know.

The problem
Does the Bible teach that translations would be free from textual and translational errors? I say no.

If a perfect translation is required, then where was the Bible before 1611? Sam Gipp even admits it wasn't in a perfect translation in his "The Answer Book" question 13. He says that it was "available Antiochian manuscripts." If it wasn't before, then why does inerrancy require a perfect translation now?

The scriptures themselves are a translation. When we read the words of Joseph, that is a translation, because he spoke Egyptian in front of his brothers to mask his identity. When we read the words of Nebuchadnezzar, they are a translation.

And most historians believe the scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch were reading were a Greek translation of the OT, yet the scriptures themselves call them scriptures.

So, if the scriptures themselves can show a translation of scripture to be scripture, why can't you accept that?

You see, that is the real question, What is scripture?

 

[jaigner]

The scriptures themselves are a translation. When we read the words of Joseph, that is a translation, because he spoke Egyptian in front of his brothers to mask his identity. When we read the words of Nebuchadnezzar, they are a translation.

And most historians believe the scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch were reading were a Greek translation of the OT, yet the scriptures themselves call them scriptures.

So, if the scriptures themselves can show a translation of scripture to be scripture, why can't you accept that?

You see, that is the real question, What is scripture?

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. There will never be a perfect translation. However, because scholars are more informed now than ever about ancient meanings, and because we have access to more ancient manuscripts than ever, we should continue to work toward a closer English representation.

Regardless, it is still the work of the Spirit that applies it to our lives. I appreciate the theological statement that Scripture comes to us as inspired and is again inspired as we allow the illuminating work of the Spirit in our lives.

 

[Winman]

And another thing, if you believe your personal version of scripture to be full of error, then how can you have faith in it? How do you know if the verse you are reading is the word of God, or words that some man inserted into the text?

And comparing one version against another is no real safety net. The version you are comparing it against might be full of serious error.

So, I am willing to bet that you yourself believe God has preserved the translations of his scriptures to a degree, he has safeguarded you from being led off into damnable heresy.

The difference between you and me is I believe God has absolutely safeguarded his word and made sure one of the translations was correct. I cannot prove this, I believe this by faith in believing that God is good and merciful and wants us to know his Word.

But if God's word is all mixed up with man's word, how can a person trust that? It is like "Where's Waldo", we are searching through the rubble of man's word trying to find God's word. And just exactly how do you distinguish what is God's word and man's word?

Call me a fool, but I believe God preserved his word in the KJV. I have never found it to be false or have error. I can fully put my trust in it and do.

 

[Winman]

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. There will never be a perfect translation. However, because scholars are more informed now than ever about ancient meanings, and because we have access to more ancient manuscripts than ever, we should continue to work toward a closer English representation.

Regardless, it is still the work of the Spirit that applies it to our lives. I appreciate the theological statement that Scripture comes to us as inspired and is again inspired as we allow the illuminating work of the Spirit in our lives.

I'm sorry, but that is pure baloney. Modern scholars can't hold a candle to the translators of the KJV. That is fantastically absurd, do some study.

The translators of the KJV knew of both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and rejected them, these two texts being the foundation of all MVs. In fact, no one had used these texts for over a thousand years including the Catholic church themselves. They have no continuity with other texts, they exist at a moment of time, with only about 43 similar texts, compared to thousands that agreed with the Received Text which the KJV is founded upon.

Scholars might dig up ruins from the 2nd century century and find copies of scripture, age does not mean they are correct. There were dozens of books circulating at the time of the 1611, the translators had strict tests to determine which books were scripture and which were not.

The truth is, from the beginning there have been many corrupt versions of scripture. So, finding some old manuscript does not prove it is actual scripture.

 

[Trotter]

The scriptures themselves are a translation. When we read the words of Joseph, that is a translation, because he spoke Egyptian in front of his brothers to mask his identity. When we read the words of Nebuchadnezzar, they are a translation.

And most historians believe the scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch were reading were a Greek translation of the OT, yet the scriptures themselves call them scriptures.

So, if the scriptures themselves can show a translation of scripture to be scripture, why can't you accept that?

You see, that is the real question, What is scripture?

It doesn't matter if Joseph spoke Eubonics. God gave the scriptures through men used of the Holy Spirit. God is the author of all languages (remember Babel?) and He is fluent in them all and so He was able to give these men the correct words to write. To try to dumb down the original writings as "mere translations" is bordering on blasphemy. If God gave it to the original authors it is more solid than any words spoken by man in any native language.

No English bible (or any other language outside of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Koine Greek New Testament) can make the claim to be exactly what God said. All translation loses part of the original in the transfer from one language to the other. A person could go to great lengths to explain the nuances between the words used but this would not be translation.

And another thing, if you believe your personal version of scripture to be full of error, then how can you have faith in it? How do you know if the verse you are reading is the word of God, or words that some man inserted into the text?

And comparing one version against another is no real safety net. The version you are comparing it against might be full of serious error.

So, I am willing to bet that you yourself believe God has preserved the translations of his scriptures to a degree, he has safeguarded you from being led off into damnable heresy.

The difference between you and me is I believe God has absolutely safeguarded his word and made sure one of the translations was correct. I cannot prove this, I believe this by faith in believing that God is good and merciful and wants us to know his Word.

But if God's word is all mixed up with man's word, how can a person trust that? It is like "Where's Waldo", we are searching through the rubble of man's word trying to find God's word. And just exactly how do you distinguish what is God's word and man's word?

Call me a fool, but I believe God preserved his word in the KJV. I have never found it to be false or have error. I can fully put my trust in it and do.

I don't know anyone here who would say their bible is full of serious errors. No translation is perfect, but all dependable translations are exactly that... dependable to be what God said.

How do you know the KJV is not full of things inserted into the text? Your blind faith is just that... "blind" to the possibility" and "faith" that you aren't wrong. You don't have anything to fall back on to prove otherwise and yet you point your finger at others and act like you have God's signature on the title page of your KJV.

We also believe by faith that God is good and merciful and wants us to know His word. this is why He has brought about various translations in modern language that people could readily understand without it having to be interpreted and the archaic language defined for them. I don't need to find Waldo... I just pick up one of my many translations and I rest assured that I have God's word in my hand.

 

[jaigner]

I'm sorry, but that is pure baloney. Modern scholars can't hold a candle to the translators of the KJV. That is fantastically absurd, do some study.

The translators of the KJV knew of both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and rejected them, these two texts being the foundation of all MVs. In fact, no one had used these texts for over a thousand years including the Catholic church themselves. They have no continuity with other texts, they exist at a moment of time, with only about 43 similar texts, compared to thousands that agreed with the Received Text which the KJV is founded upon.

Scholars might dig up ruins from the 2nd century century and find copies of scripture, age does not mean they are correct. There were dozens of books circulating at the time of the 1611, the translators had strict tests to determine which books were scripture and which were not.

The truth is, from the beginning there have been many corrupt versions of scripture. So, finding some old manuscript does not prove it is actual scripture.

They haven't just found an old manuscript. They've found tons and tons of ancient manuscripts that predate any used in translation of the KJV.

Believing that the KJV, with its reliance on some of the newest manuscripts, is the preserved Word above any other English translation seems to be quite difficult.

Hey, the KJV was about the best that could have been done at the time. God used it mightily to further His Kingdom on Earth. It's written in beautiful language. But its not as accurate.

Blessings to you, friend.

 

[Winman]

It doesn't matter if Joseph spoke Eubonics. God gave the scriptures through men used of the Holy Spirit. God is the author of all languages (remember Babel?) and He is fluent in them all and so He was able to give these men the correct words to write. To try to dumb down the original writings as "mere translations" is bordering on blasphemy. If God gave it to the original authors it is more solid than any words spoken by man in any native language.

No English bible (or any other language outside of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Koine Greek New Testament) can make the claim to be exactly what God said. All translation loses part of the original in the transfer from one language to the other. A person could go to great lengths to explain the nuances between the words used but this would not be translation.

Your argument is refuted by the scriptures themselves. Almost all scholars believe the scriptures that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was a Greek translation of the OT. And it would be ridiculous to believe they were original autographs, or written by some prophet under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No, they were without doubt written by ordinary men (scholars) who translated the Hebrew into Greek.

But the scriptures themselves identify these manuscripts as scripture.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

So, here we have an example of a man who was reading not only a copy, but also a man-made translation from Hebrew to Greek, and yet the scriptures themselves declare this manuscript to be scripture.

 

[Trotter]

Your argument is refuted by the scriptures themselves. Almost all scholars believe the scriptures that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was a Greek translation of the OT. And it would be ridiculous to believe they were original autographs, or written by some prophet under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No, they were without doubt written by ordinary men (scholars) who translated the Hebrew into Greek.

But the scriptures themselves identify these manuscripts as scripture.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

So, here we have an example of a man who was reading not only a copy, but also a man-made translation from Hebrew to Greek, and yet the scriptures themselves declare this manuscript to be scripture.

Answer one simple question... Did God inspire Luke to write this account? If He did then it is scripture and not a translation no matter who was speaking what. Did Jesus read from the Hebrew OT or did he read from the Septuagint? His words match the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT. So do the words of Paul. However the inclusion of them in the inspired words of scripture make them scripture as well and thus without error... even though they do not match the Hebrew 100%. These words move from being the words of a man-made translation to become the very words God laid down as scripture.

A translation is man exchanging the words of one language for the words of another. Scripture is what God had the authors write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So unless you think that God couldn't just give the authors of scripture the correct words you are very sadly mistaken in your endeavor to try to claim that the bible itself is translation. That broken reed on an argument won't stand on its own, much less bolster your belief that the KJV is perfect.

 

[Winman]

Answer one simple question... Did God inspire Luke to write this account? If He did then it is scripture and not a translation no matter who was speaking what. Did Jesus read from the Hebrew OT or did he read from the Septuagint? His words match the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT. So do the words of Paul. However the inclusion of them in the inspired words of scripture make them scripture as well and thus without error... even though they do not match the Hebrew 100%. These words move from being the words of a man-made translation to become the very words God laid down as scripture.

A translation is man exchanging the words of one language for the words of another. Scripture is what God had the authors write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So unless you think that God couldn't just give the authors of scripture the correct words you are very sadly mistaken in your endeavor to try to claim that the bible itself is translation. That broken reed on an argument won't stand on its own, much less bolster your belief that the KJV is perfect.

Of course God inspired Luke to write this account, but that does not change the fact that you have an example of a copy and a translation that is called scripture by scripture itself. It is actually an argument in favor of your MVs, as well as an argument for the KJV.

I have always maintained that I choose the KJV by faith, I cannot prove it is the inerrant word of God. But in my opinion, when compared to the MVs it comes out the winner. And I have always asked if the KJV is not the preserved and inerrant word of God, then which version is?

We do not know exactly what this manuscript the Ethopian eunuch was looking at, but scholars believe it to be a translation of the OT scriptures into Greek because it uses the name "Esaias", which is the Greek translation of Isaiah. And without controversy this "scripture" carried the power of God, because the Ethiopian eunuch was saved through these scriptures.

You say scripture is what God had the authors write under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Well, this very story proves than an accurate copy and translation of the original autographs is just as much scripture as the original autographs.

And not all scripture was written by the author, Jeremiah often had Baruch write his words, but they were scripture. So, another man who is not inspired himself can record real scripture.

Jer 36:4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.

Jer 36:17 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth?
18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.

We also have an example of preservation in Jeremiah 36. Jehoiakim cut out and burned the original autographs by Jeremiah (but written by Baruch), so the original autographs were lost. But God commanded Jeremiah to write them again.

Jer 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.

Jer 36:27 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

So, I show you all this just to show from scripture itself how a copy and translation can be actual scripture, and how that even when the original autographs are lost or destroyed, God preserves his word.

 

[jbh28]

The scriptures themselves are a translation. When we read the words of Joseph, that is a translation, because he spoke Egyptian in front of his brothers to mask his identity. When we read the words of Nebuchadnezzar, they are a translation.

And most historians believe the scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch were reading were a Greek translation of the OT, yet the scriptures themselves call them scriptures.

So, if the scriptures themselves can show a translation of scripture to be scripture, why can't you accept that?

You see, that is the real question, What is scripture?

As I have pointed out many times, the difference is that the NT writers who were translating were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everything they wrote was Scripture. It was new Scripture being written even though it was a translation. Translations today are not the same thing. God isn't re-writing the Bible in different languages. Men(like the AV translators) translate the Bible the best they know how.


Hey Winman, you are not answering the question.
If it wasn't before, then why does inerrancy require a perfect translation now? Or do you believe there was a perfect translation before th 1611? If so, name it.

 

[Winman]

As I have pointed out many times, the difference is that the NT writers who were translating were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Everything they wrote was Scripture. It was new Scripture being written even though it was a translation. Translations today are not the same thing. God isn't re-writing the Bible in different languages. Men(like the AV translators) translate the Bible the best they know how.

Hey Winman, you are not answering the question.
If it wasn't before, then why does inerrancy require a perfect translation now? Or do you believe there was a perfect translation before th 1611? If so, name it.

God used several languages to write the scriptures, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why couldn't God have his word translated into English or any other language?

And you are not following my debate with Trotter. The Ethopian eunuch was almost certainly reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. But the scriptures themselves called the manuscript he was reading "scripture". So if God himself can call a copy and a translation scripture, why do you insist a copy and translation cannot be scripture?

And to answer your question, I cannot. I am not a scholar on this who spends his entire life studying this subject. And guess what? The many men who have devoted their lives to this subject cannot agree.

I have said about 20 times that you will never resolve this issue through scholarship, but you insist on going that route. I can tell you right now you will never find an answer this way, good men, sincere men, scholarly men have debated this for centuries.

And what people just can't seem to grasp is that I believe that is how God wants it. He wants us to believe by faith, not scholarly proof. He promised to preserve his "pure word" which means without corruption, you either believe that promise or you don't. I simply believe it and do not worry about these hundreds of books and debates by scholars.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Your argument is refuted by the scriptures themselves. Almost all scholars believe the scriptures that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was a Greek translation of the OT. And it would be ridiculous to believe they were original autographs, or written by some prophet under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. No, they were without doubt written by ordinary men (scholars) who translated the Hebrew into Greek.

But the scriptures themselves identify these manuscripts as scripture.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

So, here we have an example of a man who was reading not only a copy, but also a man-made translation from Hebrew to Greek, and yet the scriptures themselves declare this manuscript to be scripture.

I asked this earlier but the thread was closed so I'll give it another shot:

Actually it disproves a basic tenet of KJVOism:

Things that are different cannot be the same.

To wit:

Acts 8:32,33-

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.



Isa. 53:7,8


he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

If Luke called it Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who are you to argue with it?

 

[Winman]

I have never said that things are different are not the same. It is dispensationalist who are big on that statement.

Anybody who reads the NT can see that many times when OT scripture is quoted in the NT it is often different. I could show many examples myself. And you are correct, the Holy Spirit has the perfect right to rephrase himself.

And I am not one of those fanatics who says only the KJV in English is the scriptures. I believe an accurate and inerrant copy can be translated into any language and should be.

But I do believe the KJV is the only truly accurate and inerrant translation in English. The other versions contain the word of God, but as a whole they delete many verses and passages, and in some verses contradict the KJV and even other MVs.

I gave an analogy once. If I made a statement like:

It is written, thou shalt not kill, but I disagree with this, and think we should be able to kill anyone who annoys us.

Now, this statement contains the word of God. "thou shalt not kill" is the word of God. It is truth. But my statement is not scripture because I have added words to God's word, and my statements are not accurate or inerrant.

Now, if a person translated this to say, "thou shalt not murder", that is an accurate translation of God's word. That is scripture. As long as the translation fully and completely gives the meaning of scripture and does not add or take from it, that is scripture, and it is the word of God.

And we have an example of this in Nehemiah. Many of the Jews who returned from Babylon no longer knew Hebrew. Some were born and raised in Babylon and did not know their parent's language.

Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people; ) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Most of these Jews who returned from Babylon spoke Aramaic. In fact, this is when the dominant language of the Jews became Aramaic as in Jesus's day. So Ezra had men who knew and understood Hebrew translate the word of God into Aramaic, and gave the distinct understanding unto the people.

And the scriptures in this account show that a translation can be accurate. These men gave the "distinct" meaning and sense of the Hebrew scriptures to these people in Aramaic.

 

[Dave]

The KJV is a fine translation of the scripture, but to say it is "inspired" as the original autographs were is a leap of logic without support. The translators of the King James, if I am not mistaken, only had 7 manuscripts available to them, including that Latin Vulgate which was itself a translation. I don't think any one of us would like to make the argument that the Vulgate is "inspired" would we?

Many readings in the KJV were taken from the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible. There were also translator notes in the original 1611 edition which gave alternate renderings of certain words and phrases throughout. This indicates that the translators did not feel that their rendering of the scripture was 100%, beyond any doubt, accurate.

While I agree that the modern idea that the oldest manuscript is the most accurate is a preposterous position, we do have many more manuscripts available to us today than were used by the KJV translators. The ideal English translation is one based on the Majority Text as one can translate based on the greatest agreement among the various manuscripts rather than simply basing it on a few manuscripts found in a cave and dated earlier than the rest.

I would welcome an English Bible based on the Majority Text (I know about the EMTV but have only seen it online, I am talking about in print). Until then, I will still use the KJV, but will refer to other translations to get a fuller sense of some passages.

It is through prayerful study that we come to a deeper understanding of the scripture. Which translation you use is a personal choice, I just disagree with the Westcott-Hort philosophy on evaluating manuscripts.

God bless,
Dave

 

[jbh28]

God used several languages to write the scriptures, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why couldn't God have his word translated into English or any other language?

And you are not following my debate with Trotter. The Ethopian eunuch was almost certainly reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. But the scriptures themselves called the manuscript he was reading "scripture". So if God himself can call a copy and a translation scripture, why do you insist a copy and translation cannot be scripture?

I believe the KJV is Scripture, just as I believe the ESV, the NKJV, and the NASB to be Scripture.

And to answer your question, I cannot. I am not a scholar on this who spends his entire life studying this subject. And guess what? The many men who have devoted their lives to this subject cannot agree.

I have said about 20 times that you will never resolve this issue through scholarship, but you insist on going that route. I can tell you right now you will never find an answer this way, good men, sincere men, scholarly men have debated this for centuries.

And what people just can't seem to grasp is that I believe that is how God wants it. He wants us to believe by faith, not scholarly proof. He promised to preserve his "pure word" which means without corruption, you either believe that promise or you don't. I simply believe it and do not worry about these hundreds of books and debates by scholars.

the problem is that you say we must have "pure words" in one translation which isn't in the Bible. There is nothing before the KJV that agrees 100%. (Not even a Greek text). Requiring a perfect translation isn't' in the Bible. It isn't a matter of faith, but adding to what God said. Those before 1611 had the Bible. It was preserved for them just as it is for us today.

 

[Winman]

The KJV is a fine translation of the scripture, but to say it is "inspired" as the original autographs were is a leap of logic without support. The translators of the King James, if I am not mistaken, only had 7 manuscripts available to them, including that Latin Vulgate which was itself a translation. I don't think any one of us would like to make the argument that the Vulgate is "inspired" would we?

Many readings in the KJV were taken from the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible. There were also translator notes in the original 1611 edition which gave alternate renderings of certain words and phrases throughout. This indicates that the translators did not feel that their rendering of the scripture was 100%, beyond any doubt, accurate.

While I agree that the modern idea that the oldest manuscript is the most accurate is a preposterous position, we do have many more manuscripts available to us today than were used by the KJV translators. The ideal English translation is one based on the Majority Text as one can translate based on the greatest agreement among the various manuscripts rather than simply basing it on a few manuscripts found in a cave and dated earlier than the rest.

I would welcome an English Bible based on the Majority Text (I know about the EMTV but have only seen it online, I am talking about in print). Until then, I will still use the KJV, but will refer to other translations to get a fuller sense of some passages.

It is through prayerful study that we come to a deeper understanding of the scripture. Which translation you use is a personal choice, I just disagree with the Westcott-Hort philosophy on evaluating manuscripts.

God bless,
Dave

Well, I believe they had more manuscipts than that, but regardless, it was the number of manuscripts that agreed that gave them the knowledge to know what the true word of God is.

For example, if they have 50 copies that contained a certain verse, but only 2 copies did not, then they decided this verse should be included in the scriptures. However, let's say only 2 copies had a certain verse, and 20 did not, but Jesus's referred to this verse in another verse in all copies available. Then they would include it. They had very strict tests like this to determine what was scripture and what was not.

For instance, some said Jonah was not scripture. But Jesus spoke of Jonah in all copies and so verified that the book of Jonah was indeed scripture.

There are many good books on this subject, I am not the one to tell you the methods the KJV translators used. I read about it many years ago but frankly I have forgotten most of what I read. But I did come away believing they came out with an accurate and inerrant translation of God's word.

 

[Winman]

It is through prayerful study that we come to a deeper understanding of the scripture. Which translation you use is a personal choice, I just disagree with the Westcott-Hort philosophy on evaluating manuscripts.

We are in agreement here, and the Westcott-Hort philosophy is the foundation for all modern versions. That is why I do not believe them to be accurate or inerrant translations.

 

[jbh28]

We are in agreement here, and the Westcott-Hort philosophy is the foundation for all modern versions. That is why I do not believe them to be accurate or inerrant translations.

I have no problem with someone that has a disagreement with the manuscripts that are Alexandrian. The majority argument(or majority family as the byzantine) is a very good argument. I disagree with you as you do I. For you to think the modern version to be inaccurate because you believe they are making bad textual decisions is a fine argument. I've said before, there are good, defensible reasons to be kjvo, and there are very bad ones. I never try to get a person to go away from the good reasons. I can discuss it, but there is not problem with their view.

 

[Winman]

Hey, I am just telling you I have studied the subject for myself and reject the Wescott and Hort translations. In my mind a person would have to be crazy to accept translations by these two, but that is my own personal opinion.

But you still do not get it, I believe God preserved one inerrant translation because he promised to preserve his pure word. My faith is based on his promise, not scholarship.