Questions we’re not suppose to ask

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Missionary C4K: // Because we don't all live in 1611 England or speak the same language they did. God wants me to have His word in my language. \\

Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it.

My two Children both participate in a Living Chess Board at a Medieval Fair. They speaketh Early Middle English. It is fun to speak. It is even pleasant to the eye with all the "I" instead of "J", the switched 'V' and 'U', the multitude of silent 'e's. ) like in the real 1611 printings of the KJV (King James Version) before a more modern usage made it rather dull.

2Jn 1:3 (KJV1611 edition, e-sword.com edition ):
Grace bee with you, mercie, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Iesus Christ, the Sonne of the Father in trueth and loue.

 

[ktn4eg]

Stilllearning:

If I understand you correctly, I take it that you believe that in order for any Bible (regardless of what language it may be in or what version it may be called) to be considered as God's Word, its New Testament must be translated from the Textus Receptus.

However, the Textus Receptus as we know it wasn't even published until the 1500's.

With that in mind, what would those who lived before the 1500's have done in order to have God's Word for them?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello menageriekeeper

First you said.......

“Why do you think every Christain MUST have a complete set of scriptures?
Do you not know that millions of Christains get by just fine with a New Testament. Some even are lucky if they have one book of the Bible to call their own. We have the Holy Spirit! He is perfectly capable of teaching us God's way without having an entire Bible.”

You kind of have a point. But this is why the Lord blesses us, based upon what we have.......
Luke 12:48
“But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few [stripes]. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

Those Saints that only have limited access to God’s Word, can and are blessed as much as we are.
Unless of course, we don’t use the opportunities we have been given.

With this in mind, I do not see it as an advantage, to have more than one Bible in a given language.
(A man with one watch knows what time it is, but he that has two watches will never know.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“Don't get me wrong, its still a fine translation. But language is 4 centuries old. I understand it. I was raised with it. But many, many of our public educated English speaking peers don't have the first clue how to read it or how to interpret the nuances of meaning of words that are no longer common in our language or which have changed in meaning over the years.

Let me explain it a little differently. Its like watching a show filmed in black and white, when there is a color version available. You are going to get a few folks who appreciate it for its art. You'll get a few that are just curious, but mostly it will get ignored. We do not want the Word of God to be ignored by those who need it, simply because we refuse to update the language.”

You have a great point. And I wish this wasn’t the case. But there is nothing that can be done about it.
Maybe a 150 years ago, someone could have, but they didn’t.

The reason it is too late to fix this problem now, is because the cat is out of the bag, in the area of the Greek.
(Anyone who tries to rewrite the KJV today, will be under too much pressure to include the changes “discovered”, over the last 100 years or so, and that will mess it up.)

Because a big part of those changes, would be Wescott & Hort’s manuscript.
(And that just won’t do.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

“No and as a matter of fact, the very corruption that seeks to keep God out of our lives, defeats it own purpose because it is ever ready to find something mistranslated so it can denigrate God and laugh at the Christians as fools. You just let an athiest come across something that has been tranlated incorrectly and see the hue and cry that results. They already go through the Book with a fine tooth comb looking for anything that might be used to prove it all a lie.”

You know, I often think about this myself. I’m sure you are aware of the “Easter” mistake in the KJV.
It definitely is a mistake, but I am sure that the men who God used to translate the Bible back then, also knew that it was a mistake.
As I have said before, the KJV wasn’t the only English Bible that had this mistake.

So the question is, WHAT IS GOING ON? Why would God lead these men, to purposely include such a mistake as this?!?!

The only conclusion that I can come up with, is the LORD wanted this “mistake” to be placed in the Bible, for the benefit of these atheists you talked about.
(If someone wants to reject the truth, than the LORD will allow them to find an excuse!)
--------------------------------------------------

I have really enjoyed this discussion.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The reason it is too late to fix this problem now, is because the cat is out of the bag, in the area of the Greek.
(Anyone who tries to rewrite the KJV today, will be under too much pressure to include the changes “discovered”, over the last 100 years or so, and that will mess it up.)

Because a big part of those changes, would be Wescott & Hort’s manuscript.
(And that just won’t do.)

In another thread you praised our brother John of Japan for his work. Do you think he is influenced by 'W&H' or is it only English translations that would be 'messed up' in the 21st century?

You know, I often think about this myself. I’m sure you are aware of the “Easter” mistake in the KJV.
It definitely is a mistake, but I am sure that the men who God used to translate the Bible back then, also knew that it was a mistake.
As I have said before, the KJV wasn’t the only English Bible that had this mistake.

So the question is, WHAT IS GOING ON? Why would God lead these men, to purposely include such a mistake as this?!?!

The only conclusion that I can come up with, is the LORD wanted this “mistake” to be placed in the Bible, for the benefit of these atheists you talked about.
(If someone wants to reject the truth, than the LORD will allow them to find an excuse!)

So you do admit that your Bible has at least one mistake in it? This confuses me I must admit. If your Bible has one mistake how do you know it does not have more?

 

[robycop3]

Still Learning:(1)Why should you doubt that the KJV, is“the sole repository for God’s Word in the English language”?

Because there are several others, older and newer, all equally God's word

(2)Should Christians of the past, have doubted that the Bible was complete?

Depended on their knowledge of the ancient Scriptural mss.

(3)Should Christians today, be doubting that we have God’s completed Word?

No, not with all our tools such as these computers, and the availability of God's word in older and newer versions, including those in OUR language.

(4)At what point in time, should we expect the LORD to fulfil His promise, to preserve His Word for us?

Right now. He always has, and still does. He did NOT retire in 1611.

Now, lemme ask YOU:

WHERE does GOD promote KJVO in His word whatsoever?

If KJVO is not found in God's word, we must assume it's NOT from Him and is therefore FALSE.

 

[stilllearning]

Good morning C4K

I am trying to respond in order: (But I felt that I needed to get to you right away.)
--------------------------------------------------
You said........
“In another thread you praised our brother John of Japan for his work. Do you think he is influenced by 'W&H' or is it only English translations that would be 'messed up' in the 21st century?”

John of Japan, stated that he was using the TR, for his New Testament translating work:
(Which means that he is not being influenced by W&H.)

And no: W&H’s work, will taint any translation into any language, that uses it.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........
“So you do admit that your Bible has at least one mistake in it? This confuses me I must admit. If your Bible has one mistake how do you know it does not have more?”

Well like I have said many times before, the KJV has been the most scrutinized document in all of human history.
Being inspected by those who hate it the most.

Therefore, if there were any other mistakes in it, we would all know about it.

Also, as you read, even though this is clearly a “mistake”, it is such an obvious one, that the LORD must have some purpose in it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Good morning C4K

I am trying to respond in order: (But I felt that I needed to get to you right away.)
--------------------------------------------------
You said........
“In another thread you praised our brother John of Japan for his work. Do you think he is influenced by 'W&H' or is it only English translations that would be 'messed up' in the 21st century?”

John of Japan, stated that he was using the TR, for his New Testament translating work:
(Which means that he is not being influenced by W&H.)

And no: W&H’s work, will taint any translation into any language, that uses it.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........
“So you do admit that your Bible has at least one mistake in it? This confuses me I must admit. If your Bible has one mistake how do you know it does not have more?”

Well like I have said many times before, the KJV has been the most scrutinized document in all of human history.
Being inspected by those who hate it the most.

Therefore, if there were any other mistakes in it, we would all know about it.

Also, as you read, even though this is clearly a “mistake”, it is such an obvious one, that the LORD must have some purpose in it.

Your point was that no translators could produce an English Bible today because of the taint of the 'W&H' yet you say that John can do it in Japanese. I love my dear brother and admire him greatly, but what lifts him up above every other man that he can do it and no one else can? Why can English translators not do what John is doing?

How can you possibly trust a flawed Bible? Do you really think that God is a God of mistakes?

BTW, look at Romans 6v1 for another 'mistake.' There is no ground for translating that as 'God forbid' if you believe in formal equivalent translation.

These were brilliant men who produced an excellent translation, but they were men.

I cannot accept that God would purposefully deceive the English speaking world by leading these men to include a mistake in translation, even one mistake.

 

[Trotter]

W&H’s work, will taint any translation into any language, that uses it.

Sounds like you need to listen to your user name. So far you have only continued to rattle off the same dogma over and over and over. I am struggling to be civil in my response, so please bear with me.

Just because something is not EXACTLY like the KJV does not make it "tainted" or profane or perverted. Yet you, and so many other KJVO, love to yell just that. Was the TR written by God's own finger? No, it was assembled by a humanist Catholic (whose salvation is in serious question) using what manuscripts he had access to with the gaps filled in by his reverse-translating the Latin Vulgate. And just how would this document be any better than what has been put forth in our modern times using the latest finds and techniques? It will not be better but would be found at best equal but most likely lacking.

It is a very real possibility the W&H were not believers. Had the Christian community just took their work and used it as-is there would be a serious problem. This is not the case. Their work has been tried and redone by countless Christian scholars over the years. And yet you, and the other KJVO adherents, rant and rave about the "W&H taint" and the devil's own signature to any modern translation that is not a clone of the KJV.

And I am still waiting on scriptural evidence that the KJV is the sole source of God's word in English. I would even be satisfied if you could provide some kind of proof that there should only be a single translation in ANY language. Or that we should not continue to bring the scriptures into the modern language of the day and not keep it locked in an archaic version that prevents many from being able to read and understand the bible. Not that I ever expect to get anything akin to a straight answer... or any answer for that matter.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I have neither the time nor the patience to correct all your errors, inconsistencies, and misconceptions; but readers here deserve to have some of them addressed. An example of one of your errors is how you confuse the term "Higher Criticism" with textual (Lower) criticism.

Now, notice the completely inadequate answer you give below --

... In my long-standing defense of God’s Word, many have tried to stump me by asking,
“Well, what did Christians have before the KJV?”

And the answer is obvious:
At first they had the original autographs themselvesHow do you think they were destroyed?)
Maybe burned or ripped to shreds by some evil God hater. Not at all.
They just flat wore out. (Because people were reading and memorizing them!)
And then after that, they had the copies. ...

Your response applies to a tiny fraction of Christians throughout the ancient world. Very few Christians would have ever seen the autographs. Most ancient Christians did not read or speak Greek and/or Hebrew which is the reason that the Scriptures were very rapidly translated into several languages. Even most Jews outside Palestine didn't read or speak Hebrew before the 1st century. Many more Christians read handwritten translations than ever read actual copies of the autographs.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Or that we should not continue to bring the scriptures into the modern language of the day and not keep it locked in an archaic version that prevents many from being able to read and understand the bible.

It is a good thing God allows translations as languages develop. Other wise we would be reading this today.

Be ye nothing bisi, but in al preyer and biseching, with doyng of thankyngis, be youre axyngis knowun at God. And the pees of God, that passith al wit, kepe youre hertis and vndurstondingis in Crist Jhesu. Fro hennus forth, britheren, what euere thingis ben sothe, what euere thingis chast, what euere thingis iust, what euere thingis hooli, what euere thingis able to be louyd, what euere thingis of good fame, if ony vertu, if ony preising of discipline, thenke ye these thingis,

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

At first they had the original autographs themselvesHow do you think they were destroyed?)
Maybe burned or ripped to shreds by some evil God hater. Not at all.
They just flat wore out. (Because people were reading and memorizing them!)
And then after that, they had the copies.

I didn't realise we knew what happened to the original autographs. I would love to read the article about them wearing out instead of being destroyed. Would you point me in the right direction please. I don't live too far from one of the great Bible manuscript collections in the world (Chester Beatty) and am fascinated my the study of early mss.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

I have never said, that “no” translators could produce an English Bible today.

I have only been saying, that as time progresses, people are waxing worse and worse.
--------------------------------------------------
There is always going to be a faithful remnant.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Trotter

Take it easy, and don’t loose your cool.

You said.......

“Just because something is not EXACTLY like the KJV does not make it "tainted" or profane or perverted. Yet you, and so many other KJVO, love to yell just that. Was the TR written by God's own finger?”

No, I have not said that.
But......I have been saying(and will continue to say), that the Greek manuscript that W&H “put together”, is tainted.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“Was the TR written by God's own finger? No, it was assembled by a humanist Catholic (whose salvation is in serious question) using what manuscripts he had access to with the gaps filled in by his reverse-translating the Latin Vulgate. And just how would this document be any better than what has been put forth in our modern times using the latest finds and techniques? It will not be better but would be found at best equal but most likely lacking.”

This new dictionary that people are using, had me resist using the term TR, for a long time, and the one time that I use it, I remember why.

When I use the term TR, I am taking about: (The Textus Receptus, Latin for........ "received text", or also knows as the majority text, or the Byzantine manuscripts, or the Traditional Text or Ecclesiastical Text.........

This is the large collection(5000+) of Greek documents that make up the New Testament.
They are all very very close, to each other, and for hundreds of years, had been accepted as God’s preserved New Testament.

Wescott & Hort(and others), rejected this, and that is what changed everything.
--------------------------------------------------


I have got to go now, I will finish later.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

I have never said, that “no” translators could produce an English Bible today.

I have only been saying, that as time progresses, people are waxing worse and worse.
--------------------------------------------------
There is always going to be a faithful remnant.

Here is your quote

You have a great point. And I wish this wasn’t the case. But there is nothing that can be done about it.
Maybe a 150 years ago, someone could have, but they didn’t.

The reason it is too late to fix this problem now, is because the cat is out of the bag, in the area of the Greek.
(Anyone who tries to rewrite the KJV today, will be under too much pressure to include the changes “discovered”, over the last 100 years or so, and that will mess it up.)

Because a big part of those changes, would be Wescott & Hort’s manuscript.
(And that just won’t do.)

Nothing can be done. It is too late. Too much pressure...

And your worse and worse theory would surely imply that John cannot do as good a job as those who translated the Bible 50 years ago.

Sad thing here is that I basically agree with you on the superiority of the traditional textual body. That is why my other version of choice is the NKJV. It is translated from those texts.

 

[Trotter]

But......I have been saying(and will continue to say), that the Greek manuscript that W&H “put together”, is tainted.

Exactly. YOU have been saying. You have no proof, nothing to back it up except your own personal opinion. Oh, and your man-made, cult based doctrine. Excuse me if I won't accept that as gospel.

When I use the term TR, I am taking about: (The Textus Receptus, Latin for........ "received text", or also knows as the majority text, or the Byzantine manuscripts, or the Traditional Text or Ecclesiastical Text.........

This is the large collection(5000+) of Greek documents that make up the New Testament.
They are all very very close, to each other, and for hundreds of years, had been accepted as God’s preserved New Testament.

That's the same meaning used by everyone else here AFAIK.

The actual differences between the TR and today's Greek text are minor, mainly with extraneous content found in the RT removed. The words, phrases, and in a couple of cases verses, removed have been found to not be found in the earlier manuscripts, or only found in a few manuscripts in total. Because of this evidence (only found in later manuscripts, or only found in a few of these later manuscripts) these were removed from today's Greek text.

I will add that NONE of this affects any doctrines of the Christian faith.

Wescott & Hort(and others), rejected this, and that is what changed everything.

W&H treated the Greek just like others had treated many historical documents. Whatever their original aims, the work they did has been redone by Christian scholars (as I said before). Any "taint" W&H may have included would have been removed long, long ago. Of course, if you (or any other KJVO) are unwilling to open your eyes and actually look at these things you would see it for yourself. instead the KJVO camp prefers to plug their ears and chant "La-la-la-la" at the tops of their lungs with their eyes squeezed tightly shut.

My mom taught me that a lie is a lie is a lie, no matter how well you dress it up. The same can be said of man-made doctrines and translation idolatry.

 

[preachinjesus]

That is interesting. (But 500 years is a long time.) On another thread, the subject of the canon came up, and everybody seems to have an opinion about, the exact date when the canon was established.

500 years of English translations...1500 years prior of Latin.

Is it far fetched, to state that at that time, God’s Word was settled? (It was complete and copies of the 27 New Testament books, were in hand?)

I am missing your line of logic here. My apologies. I believe that because of the cannonization process, as led by the Holy Spirit and conducted through the early church from c. 40 AD through the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD.

For hundreds of years, Christian scholars, had copies of the 27 New Testament books, and there was no question that they were accurate. (They all knew about the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, but they didn’t care about them because everybody knew that they were corrupt.)

This last statement is incorrect. Sinaiticus wasn't available to English translators until the mid-19th century. Vaticanus wasn't widely available until well after the cannonization process had ended. Keep in mind, the textual critical practice was not widely used until the modern era. Also neither Sinaticus or Vaticanus are seen as corrupt, and they are reliable documents for present day textual critical discussions.

Now this is where we were, until Wescott & Hort, and then everything changed.

You seem to be really big on Wescott and Hort and honestly I think you have bad history here. Where is Tischendorf in your research? How does the Griesbach figure in? What about Greg's developments in textual criticism as pertains to reconfiguring the text honestly?

You and I have two different opinions about textual criticism(Higher criticism).

Oh, I see. Yeah you think textual criticism = higher criticism. This is an incorrect understanding.

Textual criticism deals with the identification and reconstruction of ancient texts through the process of removing scribal mistakes, emendations, interpolations, and such in order to reconstruct as faithfully as possible the extant document

Higher criticism deals with literary analysis of the text in terms of the authorship and intent.

Textual criticism tries to develop the document, higher criticism tried to identify the authorship. Two completely different fields.

I see this process in itself, being a slap in God’s face.
(Telling God that He was not able to preserve His Word for us, so we have to.)

Well I disagree. I know too many good Christians who are faithfully working with textual criticism to reconfigure the text to believe this. We have a great representation of the text, it is far better than Erasmus' version. That is because of the faithfulness of textual critical scholars.

I agree; So why do need Higher criticism.

You're confusing the terms.

Didn’t we have the TR, 400 years ago?
And way back then, God’s people were satisfied with it: So we should be.

No actually the only people satisfied with the TR were the politicians pushing for the Authorized Version in order to pacify the CoE. Nobody was happy with it and it has been widely discreditted as the best text source for translation.

The question you pose, is....does God what (sic) us lifting up the Bible like this?
Good Question.

Well is God more concerned with our faith or our physical evidence? Where is our faith focused? On a book or on Jesus?

The verse that came to mind with this question, was........
1 John 5:10

Yeah I'll agree with others, the context needs to be studied here.

The Bible is “the record”, that God has given to us.
(Therefore I trust that this “record”, would have been preserved for us.)

I don't doubt that the contemporary texts we have are faithful to the original autographs. Unfortunately the history of textual criticism (not higher criticism) shows us that while many earlier versions of the English Bible were good we have better resources now.

This isn't the say the KJV is bad...the 1796 revision being far superior to the 1611. It is a great text but on the same level as other English works, not better.

Thank you very much, for your response.

Thank you for taking time to reply. I understand your position better.

 

[preachinjesus]

Stilllearning, I am thankful for you (what I see as) honest questions. But I am seeing the wide ranging holes in your understanding of this and many related fields.

I would highly encourage you to pick up some resources about textual criticism and such. There are some great ones out there and I'm happy to provide titles and authors for you to consider.

Editted to add: I don't want to speak for anyone else, but please show us articles, (credible) links, and or other scholarly material showing how Westcott and Hort are deceptive and have created a erroneous text. That seems to be a big hang up for you.

 

[Thermodynamics]

I love this board and the people on it (on both sides of this issue), but I have begun to feel as if I am wading into a swamp full of snakes and slime when I respond to these sorts of threads (from both the KJV and MV camps). I am very interested in the issue of Bible versions and the manuscripts on which they are based, but I have grown to hate the way it makes Christians act and treat one another.

I love the KJV translation, I grew up with it and it has guided me and given me comfort during both the brightest and darkest times in my life. Sometimes I fail, but I try to read it every day. I have come to believe that the KJV is based on a better manuscript tradition than most of the MVs so it will remain my primary Bible. However, I also do not believe that the KJV is perfect, it's translators (while great scholars and I believe Godly men) were humans just like me and were prone to error just as I am. There are mistakes in the KJV and there are cases where poor choices were made in selection of words.

I also own and use a NKJV, NIV and ESV. Each has strong points and weak points, but all have value.

I would not go so far as to call any translation with even minor errors "God's Word." God's Word was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. What we have in Enlgish are translations of God's Word made by mere men, thus a higher value should (in my opinion) be placed on the original languages. While we are blessed of God to have these English translations, all of them do contain errors to a greater or lesser degree.

I believe the goal of a Christian should be to find the translation with the least number of errors, based on what that Christian believes to be the best manuscripts and that he/she can understand. This is a decision that each of us must make for ourself. My wife and I use the KJV (most of the time) and attend a church that uses the KJV. My oldest son uses the NIV and ESV and I fully support him in that. He and I have had some great debates on this issue, but each of us has always been careful to respect the other's position. I just wish we could see more of that respect here on these boards.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello everyone

I would like to pass along a big thank you, to everyone who has answered my questions;
(They were asked in all sincerity.)

And as a result of your thoughtful answers, I am “boning up”, and will return soon, with some more accurate ammunition.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Said of the TR (received text):
// This is the large collection(5000+) of Greek documents that make up the New Testament.
They are all very very close, to each other, and for hundreds of years, had been accepted as God’s preserved New Testament.

// Wescott & Hort(and others), rejected this, and that is what changed everything \\

As you bone up, please realise that Wescott & Hort used the large collections of Greek documents to make a Greek version. The TR is NOT all 5000+ of the documents. Wescott & Hort had lots more Greek documents. In fact, Wescott & Hort used a larger percentage of Greek Bible source document than the translators of the KJV did. The KJV's available ancient documents other than in Greek were pretty much the same documents that the Wescott & Hort had later.