slandering the Word of God

I don't think its taught. I believe it is a natural human reaction when the facts undermine a belief that people have invested emotionally in.

I have been guilty of this- even on this issue for awhile when I was KJVO.

To actually deal with the things KJVO's are confronted with is to risk doubt in something they feel secure about... whether its true or not is secondary.

 

-------------------------------------------------
Why not? Are you so naive to believe that there were never any "scribes" in the Catholic church, beginning in Alexandria to the present, who would fit your description? That my friend is laughable. </font>[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with my comments?

But to answer your question, this is the way these words are used related to this topic.

No. I am quite certain that "Catholic" scholars and scribes weren't always perfect. I do take some comfort in the fact that they were superstitious and probably terrified of willfully changing the text.

However, the KJV is just as dependent on Catholic scribes and scholars as any other version if not more so. The Byzantine church is the eastern Catholic church. Their errors over the centuries have been every bit as bad as the RCC. The TR was created by a RCC scholar who consulted and used the LV to produce his text. As stated before, the translators were only one generation removed from the RCC and still held very Catholic views. Some even supported reunification with Rome.

They can be however that is not the convention while discussing this topic.

 

Believe me, Scott, it's taught from many KJVo pulpits every week....including deflection techniques. Granted, some if it isn't taught, but is, as you say, a natural human reaction. Been there, done that, and ain't goin' back!

 

No, no, no! It's manipulation! But,
"We won't get fooled again!"
Oops, Was that out loud?
I'm in big trouble. Uh huh.

 

Well, IMO, it depends on what the intent of the person saying it actually is.

For example, in the Cal/Arm forum a poster there recently went to great lengths to say that Westcott-Hort "added the word "helkush" to John 6:44 for purposes of grammar and syntax." Then that same person said the word is best defined as "entice" or "persuade."

A. This is a serious claim about the NT MSS, particularly that words have been added by editors that are not in the MSS themselves.

B. Using a lexical definition different from every Greek lexicon changes the entire meaning of the text itself.

When confronted multiple times, that person could not or would not give a complete citation. I even posted information directly from my NT professor in seminary that clearly contradicted everything he had written.

First, the claim was that there is a corruption via addition of a word that was not in the manuscripts themselves, one of the key verbs in the text. Then the definition was changed, according to this person, alleging that the word's meaning has been "perverted." By doing this, the message of the text was successfully annilated, and made to conform (of course) to his particular views.

Both his statements were shown to be incorrect, and that person has persisted in error, throwing several temper tantrums in the process. Thus, from that point forward, these claims, IMO, moved from being statements of opinion to slander of God's own Word.

 

So.....what you all (or most of you) are saying is this.
"Corrupt" implies accidental spoiling of a given passage; while "pervert" implies intentional spoiling of said passage?

Is that what you are trying to say?
In HIs service;
Jim

 

Yes.

 

I'm sorry Scott. You emphatic "yes" doesn't hold up in light of scripture. In II Cor. 2:17 the word "corrupt" means "deal deceitfully" in context. Well, unless you prefer a version that changes the word to "pedal" which also means "handle".

 

We aren't talking about the use within the text. We are talking about the use in discussion of texts.

 

So unless Jim and I use "corrupt" only as it applies to an accident and we don't use say.. Scripture to define the word...about Scripture...well then we're right? Wrong? Right?

 

To perhaps clarify and shed some light:

*All* manuscripts are "corrupt" to some degree, since all MSS have readings that vary from one to another; further, there is no one MS that can be declared to be "the" autograph or a precise copy of the autograph.

*Some* of these MSS are "corrupt" by accident or unintentional scribal error in various places.

*Some* of these MSS *may* have been deliberately altered in parts for evil intent, and thus "perverted".

*Some* of these MSS *may* have been deliberately altered in parts for *good* intent, even if such did not preserve the autograph, thus still "perverted" or "corrupted".

The issue revolves around the presence of textual variation based upon error or accident versus textual variation created intentionally, whether from pure or impure motives.

Either way, all MSS are "corrupt" to one degree or another, but not all MSS are necessarily "perverted". Does that make sense?

 

So the scripture that Timothy "hast known" was corrupt? Did he know the scriptures from the originals or copies?

 

uh, not exactly.

When we point out the mistranslations and the utter nonsensical use of mss that offer disharmony and multiple contradictions, and since many of the modern versions offer &lt;attack on Bible deleted&gt;

[ December 17, 2004, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Which we then show you in rebuttal that the only disharmony and contradiction lies in your circular reasoning and your own experience and not on the underlying text (or the translated text) itself...

Like?

(Never mind that the KJV was translated by a bunch of paedobaptising episcopalians serving a demonination begun for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce for Henry VIII...)

So you are saying that MV's are Satanic and heretical?

That sounds like slander to me.

 

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

I hope you wouldn't use scripture in such a way. Words have a definition within their context. The proper place to get definitions of English words is of course an English dictionary, not a translation of the Bible.

 

PoR,

At best, your arguement might support TR-onlyism. But fails miserably to support KJVOism.

If we presume that TR-onlyim is scripturally correct, then you cannot in any way refute non-KJV translations that result from the TR. The NKJV, MKJV and ASV 1901 are examples of those.

However, TR-onlyism is refuted by the very existence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the time of Christ. The DSS support the OT of the MSS. That leaves one with the task of having to prove their claim of KJVOism. So please provide scriptural support for KJVOism, or, for that matter, any translation-onlyism. This is my 45th request on the board for scriptural support.

 

I used to read the KJV, in fact was raised in a church where that was the only translation used.

When I got to Junior High, someone gave me an NIV Bible... and I used it until I got to college.

In college, I began searching for something better. I didn't know it at the time, but I was not pleased with the version of the Bible I was studying from. After a short time of research, I discovered the NASB. I understand it is a word-for-word translation of the original language, not an idea-by-idea version based on the KJV, as is the NIV.

I now study out of the NASB privately, and use the NKJV in our worship services, because our pastor preaches from the KJV. Is it slander to use other translations? No I don't believe it is. But God has given me peace and shown me great things from the Scripture in my personal study. And I love His Word!

 

dogsbody: "So the scripture that Timothy "hast known" was corrupt? Did he know the scriptures from the originals or copies?"

The scripture that Timothy had and used was a hand-copied MS. Since no two hand-copied MSS are 100% identical, there would have been some "corruption" in places, caused by various levels of human failing. This does *not* mean that an imperfectly copied manuscript is thereby "perverted", nor does it imply that such minor scribal "corruption" in any manner affects the overall message, doctrine, or teaching of that scripture, no more than the minor problems within the KJV lineage (any edition) affect the overall message or teaching of those editions.

To argue anything more regarding (at least) unintentional scribal "corruption" is to make a very large mountain out of an insignificant molehill.

 

Ziggy said;
"The scripture that Timothy had and used was a hand-copied MS. Since no two hand-copied MSS are 100% identical, there would have been some "corruption" in places, caused by various levels of human failing."
_________________________________________________

I'll have to call you on this one, friend. You have no way of knowing that Timothy's copies, which likely were actually his grandmother's, were corrupted at all, since we do not have them. And we have nothing even close to that time. Or...if we do, then we have no way of knowing that what we do have represents the actual copies that Timothy had. And, those that we do have could have been corrupted AFTER Timothy's time of about 50-60 A.D.

The fact is, that, the Scribes of his day were so meticulous in copying Scripture that they had a very elaborate system developed to prevent any possible error. That is why Jesus could say, "not one jot nor tittle" will pass away. Should you care to dogmatically say that the copies extant in that time were all corrupted to some extent as you here seem to say then by default you are accusing Jesus of deception. I say so because, as you probably know, the scribes used to count every letter and mark to ensure accuracy. Therefore, in order for a MSS to have been corrupted (in that time) something as insignificant as a jot would have had to have been "lost". And THAT my friend, is not so wise a position to take.
FYI
In His service;
Jim