Questions we’re not suppose to ask

[stilllearning]

Hello robycop3

You said........

“Much of the W&H stuff is taken from Dr. Wilkinson's book, the foundation stone of the current KJVO doctrine. If you're still learning, SL, then take the time to read that book and learn just WHERE that KJVO stuff comes from!”

First of all, the “W&H stuff”, that I have been sharing, comes from me:
And what I have leaned about them.
--------------------------------------------------
But what your talking about it the “Guilt-by-association arguments and the KJV”

See this link: It is very interesting.....

http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/guilt.htm

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Steven2006

You said.........

“But I am becoming an expert on W&H; And that does not require me to study their writings.

.
This pretty much says it all.”

Now this is a perfect example, of misquoting someone!

 

[Steven2006]

Hi Steven2006

You said.........


Now this is a perfect example, of misquoting someone!

LOL, I guess I should ask, how does it feel? At least you are alive to challenge the quote.

But, OK if you like I'll will add the rest of what you said, it really doesn't sound any better.

"But I am becoming an expert on W&H; And that does not require me to study their writings.
The study that others have done, seems credible to me."

As long as the critics seem to be credible why the need to read what the men actually wrote in order to become a self proclaimed expert.

 

[mcdirector]

still learning:

Actually, I do think you have to read Westcott's and Hort's words before you could be considered anywhere near an expert. At this point, you may well be close to being an expert on what others think about them, but not about them.

When I taught a class on Mormonism, I did read the book of Mormon. Same with Islam. I couldn't talk about what either said if I didn't know for sure. Other people make mistakes as we all do. If make a mistake, I want it to be mine and not because I trusted someone else's work.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

You asked.......
“And you have not told us how you know this.”

The Bible tells me so........

1 Corinthians 1:1-2
V.1 ¶ Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,
V.2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Galatians 1:1-2
V.1 ¶ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
V.2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Ephesians 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”

etc. etc.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I'm going to quote myself since SL hasn't given me a response. (yeah, I'm feeling slighted)

So what you are saying, Stilllearning, is that God isn't capable of preserving His word in an English translation that uses modern language, because of the influences of a pair of supposed heretics who have been dead for like 200 years?

Really?

And you dare repeat the slanderous opinions of others without having read W&H works for yourself?

I'm glad I don't have to explain that one to God.

So, how about an answer. Did God become incapable of preserving His own words in a modern version because of a pair of men you consider to be heretics? Can He be stopped so easily? Because it seems to me that you are proposing that God quit preserving His words 400 years ago.

 

[preachinjesus]

I hope this comes out right and doesn't create weirdness...but I've got to say something here...

But I am becoming an expert on W&H; And that does not require me to study their writings.
The study that others have done, seems credible to me.

This line of thought is just completely askew from reality.

Friend, take it from me (if you choose) that in order to be anything remotely close to an "expert" on a topic you absolutely must read the source material of the individual(s) you are studying. To suggest that you can become anything resembling an expert on a topic without having thoroughly engaged the actual authors is foolish.

I say this because I took more than a couple of years of my life to begin the process of becoming a expert on a particular theologian of last century. Through my rigorous study (this individual shared more than one meal with Mrs. PJ and I) I read and dissected everything they wrote. After this happened (which only took about two years) I began reading everything anyone with academic credibility had written about them. Then I read everything people wrote about those people writing about this theologian.

Suffice to say, after the final period of my dissertation evaluating one aspect of this theologian's theology I was still not read enough to be an expert. Becoming an expert on any topic, but especially this kind of thing, requires you do the due diligence and take up all the primary and secondary literature.

Suggesting you can become remotely acquainted with a major thinker to critique them with ever reading the major thinker is fool-hearty.

I pray this is received as positive and not overtly callous.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hello robycop3

You said........

First of all, the “W&H stuff”, that I have been sharing, comes from me:
And what I have leaned about them.

Without of course your own study of them.

I have read much about these men from both sides, but I have not read them. This disqualifies me from a serious discussion of them, so until I do I don't even try to tell others what they believed.

If you refuse to study source materials who research is worthless and your argument is dead.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

You asked.......
“And you have not told us how you know this.”

The Bible tells me so........

1 Corinthians 1:1-2
V.1 ¶ Paul, called [to be] an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes [our] brother,
V.2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Galatians 1:1-2
V.1 ¶ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
V.2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Ephesians 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:”

etc. etc.

How does this answer your suggestion that the early church wore out the original manuscripts?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You asked.....


No I can’t: Not at this moment.
But I said, “finger prints”, which means that publishers were “influenced”, by W&H’s work.
And although I can exactly prove it, the evidence seems to be pretty clear here on the BB.
I mean, would anybody here, every buy any Bible that didn’t take their work into consideration.(Other than me).
These two giants, have been so lifted up, for so many years, chances are every Bible produced after them, would have been influenced by them.
That is all I was saying.

But let me look into, and I will let you know what I find.

I will look forward to your proof that W&H's 'fingerprints' are on the NKJV text.

Again, you claim that my long time friend John of Japan can do this in Japanese, but that it can't be done in English.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello preachinjesus

Always nice to respond to you.

You said.......

“Well I just don't think you've done the due diligence to understand W&H's positions and their contributions to textual criticism.”

You might be right; Although what I have learned about them so far, makes me doubtful that they had anything to contribute.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said......

“I did notice you have not responded, several times now, to the more germane issues I have raised in response to your questions. Particularly here I am thinking of the misunderstanding of textual criticism and higher criticism you had earlier. This isn't a criticism (no pun intended) but I do wonder where you are at with the more significant issues related to this post.”

As I have seen it, the issues of this post, is God’s preservation of His Word.
There are those, who choose to accept the “very popular” idea, that we have to somehow “find”, the original autographs again, by way of textual criticism.
(I have already pointed out to them that God would not have allowed His Word to “get lost”
And they quickly came back, saying that is isn’t really lost.
Well if is isn’t lost, than why the need for any kind of textual criticism.

There has not really been a misunderstanding of textual criticism on my partAt least I hope not
What there has be is a rejection of textual criticism.
--------------------------------------------------
You also pointed out.......

“One of the unfortunate traits you are exhibiting (I humbly submit) is that of the artful dodger...you keep coming back to the character and intent of W&H when several of us have asked you to move on past them. They are not the main issue when it comes to the matters being discussed.

I don’t see this as an “unfortunate trait”, but rather a dogged stubbornness, to keep the discussion on track.
The real issue here, isn’t the accuracy(or lack thereof), of the Modern versions, as much as it is a hatred and rejection of the KJV.

Remember those questions that started this thread: They are at the heart of this thread.

Those questions are the issue: And they were asked because........
“If the majority ideas today, about the KJV are true, then every committed Christian that worshiped God prior to 1881, was a moron.”
Because they had placed their complete trust in a Bible that was full of errors.

Now most people want to avoid these questions, because if those Saints that fully trusted the manuscripts the gave us the KJV weren’t morons, than everyone today that isn’t KJVO, is.

Praise the Lord, I am not afraid to be called, anti-intellectual: Most of my friends in the ministry are, but I’m not.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you asked.........

“Perhaps you could provide us with a list of more credible textual sources since the work of W&H.”

No I couldn’t. I am not following the same path that you are.
As I have said, I have no interest in searching for the lost New Testament.

As for the list of men you gave me: (My plate is full, trying to point people back to the Bible
By identifying the two men who, you could say opened the door, for Von Soden and Nestle-Aland.
--------------------------------------------------
You asked......

“I am interested to see the depth of your research into this area.
This might help me better understand your position and give a better answer. I think we're missing a couple parts of the conversation here.”

We are.
As you can see, I am a simple man; I love the LORD and His Word.

As for my study material, I stick with the 66 books.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.........

“Well you have called into question the salvation of two men who you do not know. This is a slanderous accusation against gentlemen, who as far as I can tell, were humble servants of the the most High God.”

I don’t recall questioning their salvation: (I simply called them heretics.)
As for my slander, of these “humble servants of the the most High God”, I will have to face my LORD for where I am taking a stand.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you stated.......

“In doing so you noted a comment from J.W. Burgon, a man who tirelessly refuted any manuscript other than the TR.”

Sounds like a pritty nice guy to me. Can’t wait to meet him in heaven.

--------------------------------------------------
And........

“The severity of his criticisms against W&H ended up becoming so personal that nobody wanted anything to do with by the end of the his career.”

Sounds kind of like, what is happening to me, here on the BB.
--------------------------------------------------
Burgon is sounding more and more like me:
If indeed he said.........

“The traditional text served the Church well for 1500 years, why would God allow a corrupt text to influence the Church?”

This sounds eerily close, to one of my original questions?!?!
--------------------------------------------------
Next is the argument, that I have been waiting for.......

“The point of textual criticism (as W&H, and others, developed) helps us see a more clear picture of the original text. We have a faithful text, yes, but we desire a clear text.”

This idea is what inspired the sideburn story.
Thinking that somehow we need to make the Bible somehow better, has only opened the door to those who want to discredit it.

The Bible’s sideburns are perfect.
--------------------------------------------------
Next........

“Later witnesses must be better than earlier witnesses of the text.”

Now I truly doubt that Burgon ever said this: But if he did, he was off point.
The point is, that “God providentially protected the copying of His Word”.

The idea that an older mss would be better, is logical, for anything but the Bible:
Because the small changes that would normally take place over multiple copies, does not apply to Holy writ, because it’s Holy. (God protected it.)
--------------------------------------------------
Next.....

“The more traditional has not been refuted and, because it is older, must be intrinsically better.”

Here is another trap. Older is not “always” better.
(Even though men are waxing worse and worse

If pressed, I would choose the “traditional” as the best.
(Not having anything to do with tradition, but everything to do with what God has already blessed.
--------------------------------------------------
And about Jack Chick.........

“Well Jack Chick is a terrible example of an apologist who attempts to make his points through chastisement and mischaracterizations of individuals (which stands in opposition to how the NT teaches we are respond.)”

Sounds like the charges against me.

As some others have already said, lets save Jack, for another thread.
--------------------------------------------------
Lastly you said........

“I look forward to your thorough reply”

What you call “thorough”, most will call “long winded”!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here is another trap. Older is not “always” better.
(Even though men are waxing worse and worse

And yet this is one of your key reasons for your stance on the KJV - It is older so it must be better.

Consistency?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Apologies to all:

I apologise for spending so much time on this thread. I had determined not to be dragged in to this kind of squabble and I have allowed myself to do so.

I am withdrawing. I am certain that my brother stilllearning will see this as evidence of a victory on his part due to my inability to answer his reasoning. That of course is his privilege.

I need to step aside and get back at the work.

 

[preachinjesus]

stilllearning, thank you for your reply

your patience and willingness to reply are very appreciated.

Before I get to appropriately replying to your above post I would like to re-ask four questions that might have missed your editorial eye. I know with many of my posts they can be cumbersome, but these questions will help me better understand your position. I respectfully ask you to answer them in full. Thank so much!

A couple of things I would enjoy to see you answer, if you have the time, specifically are the following:

1. What is your assessment of Tischendorf's success in creating textual critical solutions to support modern research?

2. How do you think Von Soden's textual theory differs from W&H in influencing modern textual research? Particularly the variation of the K-text from the Syrian text of W&H?

3. In Metzger's influential work, how do you reconcile the significant differences between the TR and more historic reconstructions, say the Nestle-Aland version? I'm also thinking of a response along the lines of how the textual variants in both play into the equation?

4. Most importantly, with the discovery of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) there has been a watershed moment for textual history, how do you see the comparisons with the TR and make up for the deficiencies in the readings?

 

[franklinmonroe]

The following quote is from stilllearning's first significant (there was one other short one) response after a couple of posters had attempted to answer his OP questions --

... Before I tackle your answer, let me explain:
I know, that the Bible in the original languages that it was written, would be the ideal choice: But me and billions of others all over the world, can only read one language.
And weather it’s English, Spanish or Chinese, it is imperative that we have the complete Bible.

For years I have carried a New Testament/Psalms/Proverbs, in my back pocket, so that I can have it to study, at anytime of the day.

10 or 15 years ago, I realized that it isn’t the Bible. I had said, that I always carried a Bible with me: but a book that is the New Testament/Psalms/Proverbs, is not to be called a Bible, because it is not complete.

I thought about this, when I first responded to Trotter’s statement, and realized that even though our English Bible is a translation of copies, it is still “The Bible”, because it is complete. ...

I have underlined some phrases above so that stilllearning can easily locate them as I address these issues.

As stilllearning seems to define what the 'Bible' is, his statement "the Bible in the original languages" is merely a fictional ideal. According to stilllearning the 'Bible' must be "complete". From his other posts I understand "complete" to mean an OT & NT, the 66 books of the Protestant canon in one volume (the same content as the KJV). But the Jewish scriptures in Hebrew and the Christian writings in Greek have historically never been bound together. The first time the OT & NT are put together they are both in Greek (and with additional books). Maybe some one knows if there is a version that can be purchased today that has the OT in Hebrew and NT in Greek?

He states that "it is imperative that we have the complete Bible", although he does not explain why he thinks this is so important. In light of the fact that more believers throughout history have NOT had such a 'Bible' (with all 66 books) I would like to see him support his assertion.

He states that the NT "is not to be called a Bible, because it is not complete". Yet, in the same post* he assumed that early Christian (before 1611) had the "autographs" (obviously only Greek ones, since the Hebrew ones were long gone) and subsequently copies of those autographs to use as their 'Bible'. As I wrote in an earlier post, most early Christians would have had very limited access to any Scripture, and the worldwide majority would have had them only in translations (not Hebrew and Greek MSS). This is the contadiction by stilllearning: he says prior to the KJV that early Christians had the Greek autographs and copies (which isn't really accurate), but even if they did it wouldn't qualify as a complete 'Bible' by his definition. Bible simply means 'books'. So which is it stilllearning? Did the early Christians have a 'Bible' or not? If not, why did God not preserve one for them? If they did have a 'Bible' (despite being incomplete), then why can't we have an incomplete 'Bible' today?

I find your statement "even though our English Bible is a translation of copies, it is still “The Bible”, because it is complete" to be dishonest. You don't approve of "our English Bible"; you approve of the KJV and that is all. Despite the fact that the Wycliffe was the first English Bible to meet your "complete' requirement you won't accept it as the words of God, will you?

*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 themselves: (How 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.​

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Steven2006

You said........

“With all due respect, I think that is a big cop out.”

I appreciate the “due respect”, but it’s not a cop out;
Simply because of the real danger, that I see, in exposing myself to the writings of those who profess to be smarter than God.

I just don’t trust myself(my own judgement), that much, to open myself up to those who have expressed a hatred for the Bible.

I place the Bible, above every man’s opinion......
Proverbs 19:21
“[There are] many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.”
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........

“You declare them unsaved heretics and are denouncing bible translations that millions of Christians use because of these men. Mormonism and the book of Mormon is recognized by all as a cult.”

Cults, are not the only tool Satan uses, to destroy men’s lives.
As I have said before, if Satan can cause Christians to doubt the perfection of the Bible, than he will be robbing people of it’s power.

And the number of Christians using MV’s is irrelevant:
Just because the majority believes something, does not make it right.

I can’t express, just how much I appreciate everyone here(on both sides), taking the time to discuss this subject with me.

Even though my “faith” in the KJV remains strong, I am learning so much from this experience.
--------------------------------------------------
And lastly you said........

“As far as well known heretics, I posted an excerpt from a book where godly men who have taken the time to read their actual works have stated that was false. Here is how he described what was being said about them.
"gross misrepresentation, false accusations, faulty logic, and extremely poor scholarship."
You are basically doing the same and just parroting criticism you have read, while proudly stating you won't take any effort to read their work yourself.”

It may seem like that I am simply “parroting” what others have said, but I assure you I am not.
I am reading what others say, and adding it into my understanding of the subject, and then responding.

What seems to be the main question here, is “who do you believe”:
(Both sides seem to be educated, well intentioned people, but they are taking diametrically opposing positions!)

I will have to default to the Bible in this case........
1 John 4:1 ¶
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

 

[stilllearning]

Hi franklinmonroe

You said........

“You really need to read the posts more carefully. The question was in your own quote; it was puncuated by the question mark at the end.”

I am very sorry for that. I will try to be more careful in the future.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said........

“The question was about what Christians had for a 'Bible' before the KJV and you said that "they" (meaning early Christians) had the original language "autographs" (meaning something approximately equivalent to the KJV). Scattered manuscripts is not the same as having a 'Bible' as we know it.”

You are absolutely right. (Scattered manuscripts is not the same as having a Bible.)
I apologize.

It is obvious that Committed Christians, from the very beginning studied the Bible;
But the question is, what did they study..........
Acts 17:11
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

They most likely studied the LXX, but how quickly did they realize, that some of the letters that they were receiving from the Apostles, were to also be considered Scripture.

We may not ever learn this: But how does that apply to the issue of this thread?
--------------------------------------------------
Lastly you said........

“You previously made a big deal about how just the New Testament wasn't a complete 'Bible'. Few Christian in history have had a complete 'Bible'. There have been many great things done by believers without a 'Bible'.”

You know I did. And it is amazing, the great things that God’s people have been able to do(even in recent history), with only parts of the Bible.

But the fact is, I have the entire Bible now: So I believe that I will be judged or blessed by the LORD, based upon that.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello mcdirector


You said.......

“Actually, I do think you have to read Westcott's and Hort's words before you could be considered anywhere near an expert. At this point, you may well be close to being an expert on what others think about them, but not about them.”

I sure wish that I had stayed away from the word “expert”:
“expert” (A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject

There are few things that I have a high degree of skill or knowledge in, and W&H, isn’t one of them.
(But didn’t I say, that “I was becoming” an expert?)
It has to start somewhere.

As for “reading their words”, being required to become an expert. (You may be right.)
So I guess I will give up, trying to become an expert on them.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.......

“When I taught a class on Mormonism, I did read the book of Mormon. Same with Islam. I couldn't talk about what either said if I didn't know for sure. Other people make mistakes as we all do. If make a mistake, I want it to be mine and not because I trusted someone else's work.”

You make a very good point.
And praise the LORD, I think that I have gotten the message.

I believe, that I will pull back in my attack upon W&H, until I have checked out the quotes that I have read that they have made.

Thank you for your clear cut and cordial response.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello menageriekeeper

You said.....

“I'm going to quote myself since SL hasn't given me a response. (yeah, I'm feeling slighted)”

The reason I may have overlooked you previous post, is because of the tone of your questions: (Remember you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.)
--------------------------------------------------
Your first question..........

“So what you are saying, Stilllearning, is that God isn't capable of preserving His word in an English translation that uses modern language, because of the influences of a pair of supposed heretics who have been dead for like 200 years?”

No, I am not saying that: God has preserved His Word(for English speaking people), in the KJV.
Now don’t get me wrong: All those MV’s are the Word of God; But the KJV, has been protected from the changes that evil men and seducers, have made.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you asked.......

“Did God become incapable of preserving His own words in a modern version because of a pair of men you consider to be heretics?”

Was God incapable of keeping Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of knowledge and evil? Yes He was.

But He didn’t because we have a free will:
Today, each of us have a free will, to use the tried and true KJV, or to take a chance, with those MV’s.

Yes, it is taking a chance: Because if even a fraction, of what I have found out about W&H, turns out to be true, than for sure, the MV’s have been corrupted.
--------------------------------------------------
You also asked......

“Can He be stopped so easily?”

God hasn’t been stopped. At worst, an entire generation of Christians have been lied to.
But the LORD and His Word, is still going strong.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said......

“Because it seems to me that you are proposing that God quit preserving His words 400 years ago.”

When you put quotes around this, did you reread it?
The 400 year reference, must be talking about the KJV.

So you are asking, “Am I proposing that God gave us preserved His words 400 years ago?”
YES I AM.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi preachinjesus

You said......

“Friend, take it from me (if you choose) that in order to be anything remotely close to an "expert" on a topic you absolutely must read the source material of the individual(s) you are studying. To suggest that you can become anything resembling an expert on a topic without having thoroughly engaged the actual authors is foolish.”

Thank you for the heads up.

I have already gotten that message, and have retracted that claim.


Thanks for keeping me honest, and no you were not overtly callous.