Still Waiting

You said:
Please, sir, do not put words into my mouth. I do not believe that the KJV is the originals. In fact I couldn't care less about the originals, God really doesn't care about the originals either. Evidence. Jeremiah 36. So the originals are a myth. There are no originals.


==Where do you think the KJV came from? Textual studies of manuscripts (an attempt to restore the autographs). The idea that the autographs is "myth" is rather silly and unhistorical. If there were no originals then the KJV would not exist. If it were not for textual study the KJV would not exist. Not only is your statement unhistorical and unfactual it is self defeating. As for God not caring about the originals, you said that not I. What Jer 36 has to do with the original autographs of the New Testament I don't know (seems like a classic case of eisegesis).
________________________________

You said:
This one was burned and the rest wore out. So saying that you have read the originals is a joke.

==Please show me where I said I have 'read' the originals. I will continue to bring this point up until you show me.
____________________________________

You said:
Do you really believe this? If you do then either you are decieved, lying, or not to bright.

==Thank you, you are so kind. I am neither of the things you stated above. I find your brand of "discussion" very interesting.
_______________________________________

You said:
I mean this with all the respect I can muster.
Go read Luke 4:8 in your NASB or 1 John 5:13 in any of your other versions. How about Acts 8:37. Or perhaps you want to read Romans 11:6.

==Your problem here (and at other points) is you are comparing one translation to another and, on that basis alone, declaring one translation to be wrong. That is a circular argument and proves nothing. You first have to provide evidence that the KJV is the superior translation to which all other translations are accountable. Please provide this historical, textual evidence.
____________________________________


You said:
I think you should read in the KJV Revelation 22:18 and 19.

==What does this have to do with this discussion? We are not talking about removing Scripture we are talking about textual variants. You can mock this all you want but it is fact and mocking it will not make it go away. You must deal with the manuscripts (etc). Ignoring them does you no good what so ever.
______________________________

You said:
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

==Failed what test? Your questions prove nothing. Why? Simple You are presupposing the superior nature of the KJV and trying to compare other translations to the KJV. That is nothing but circular reasoning and will not work as evidence of anything. That is like saying apples are better than oranges because apples are more tasty. Of course to accept that statement you must first agree with it. That is not proof or evidence, that is a circular argument. You must prove, textually and historically, that the KJV is superior to the other faithful english translations. Until you do that all of your "tests" will prove nothing. Saying one translation does not agree with another does not mean that translation is wrong. To prove a translation wrong you must go to the textual evidence (which you say does not exist! Go figure....).
___________________________________________

You said:
Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

==Have I mentioned the NIV in a positive way? Please show me where I have. Again I will continue on this point until you show me where I have endorsed, in any way, the NIV.

Above you stated, "Please, sir, do not put words into my mouth". Yet I have counted "at least" twice where you are putting words/beliefs in my mouth in this one reply of yours alone.
______________________________________

You said:
If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.


==Let me ask you a question. You used the term "authorized". What does it mean when the KJV is called the authorized version?

_______________________________________

You said:
Please don't set up the straw man argument of saying that there is nothing missing in our new versions.

==There is nothing missing. The fact that you don't seem to understand textual studies is at the root of the disagreement here. Btw, what about the english translations before the KJV 1611?

___________________________________

You said:
Please show me some scripture that justifies the removal of all of these verses!

==Please show me that these verses were removed by the so-called MV. To do that you must go to the manuscript evidence and show that those verses/words should/should not be there (whatever the case maybe). You have to prove the superior nature of the KJV.

Btw, I find it interesting that you assume I don't like the KJV. That is incorrect. The KJV is a fine english translation. I use the KJV in personal study and devotions (along with the NASB).
_________________________

You said:
The fact that the KJV contains every word is textual evidence of why we should use only it.

==Textual evidence that the KJV is the correct translation. What does that mean?

A. That the KJV translators correctly/incorrectly translated each greek term/phrase into the english.

B. That the KJV translators made correct/incorrect decisions on what manuscript(s) to use.

Martin.

 

TCassidy

You said:
But you have no scripture to support that position.

==Actually I think I did. It may not have been in this thread so I will have to go back and check.

_______________________________

You said:
you demanded they show you scriptural proof for what they believe. But you offer no scriptural proof to support your position of not holding "one translation over another, one translation as superior to others, as long as these translations are faithful."

==This is a smoke screen. Either there is evidence, textual (biblical), for the position of KJVO or there is not. Hey, at this point I am willing to accept historical evidence as well. I am getting that few real answers from KJVO.
_________________________________

You said:
But that was not what you asked for. You demanded scriptural proof. You did not ask for the evidence they considered from history or textual issues, you demanded scripture.

==Textual is Scriptural (what are the texts but Scripture?). That can be a verse or verses, a Biblical principle...

_____________________________________

You said:
Can you give me a Biblical principle, or passage that can rightly be used to support "more than one translation?"


==Again a smoke screen. Either provide the evidence or admit it is not there are KJVO is empty. I am not the one saying someone has to use any particular translation. The evidence must be provided by those who claim one translation is superior. Where is the evidence? The Biblical evidence, in part, that allows for different faithful translations? Do you know of a verse, or verses, or a principle that restricts us to one particular translation? That will answer your question and refute KJVO (at the same time).

The claims have been made by the KJVO, I am just responding to those claims by asking for weighty evidence. So far I have got nothing but circular arguments and smoke screens. It is sad but it is what I knew would happen. I have seen KJVO advocats at work before. I have seen them divide Christians and churches over this isssue and when asked to provide solid evidence for their position....watch out. The smoke screens, the wild claims, the dodging of the issue...it all starts with one request for proof. It is sad but that has been my experience and what I am seeing here has not been much different. Sorry.
_______________________________________

Martin.

 

Sounddoctrine04

You said:
Why then do the other versions leave the verses out completely and then leave the number OUT! To top that off they put a nice little footnote at the bottom of the page that says some include this verse, but we decided not to. REV 22:18-19


==That is called textual variants (which you claim don't exist yet it clearly does). To understand the different translations, and the KJV, you have to understand something about the manuscripts (greek) and the history of the New Testament Canon.

_____________________________________

You said:
Better not to mess with Gods word. But they even admit it.

Proffessing themselves to be wise they became fools, ( stupid may work well here. But I don't change the Bible so I'll just stick with fools.)

==Before I accused someone of subtracting from God's Word I would have some very good evidence (which you don't have. All you are doing is comparing translations). Your "evidence" is your KJVO, which is not real evidence. Again this goes back to texts, manuscripts and the like. However since you claimed the "autographs" were "myth" I guess you don't put much weight in the manuscript evidence (which makes me wonder where you think the KJV came from).
___________________________________


You said:
Anyone who takes out verses they knew to be there (MV translaters) had better read what the Bible says about them.

==You simply don't understand the textual issues. You don't seem to understand the process of why "modern" translations omited certain words/phrases and the KJV (and usually the NKJV) included them. That all has to do with the manuscript/textual issues. Nobody has changed the Scriptures here. However because you don't understand textual studies I don't expect you to accept that.


_____________________________________

Martin.

 

==Here we go, the typical KJVO type of response.

 

"So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?"

Because, unlike the other things you mentioned, there is no Biblical evidence for one english translation over other (faithful) english translations. In fact there is no textual or historical evidence for KJVO. It is nothing but a personal preference that has been turned into and taught as doctrine.

Martin.

 

You said:
You keep talking about the originals and then imply that I think they never existed. I never said they didn't exist. They don't exist today!


==Well I am having to go by what you type (a down side to discussion boards). You said, "In fact I couldn't care less about the originals, God really doesn't care about the originals either. Evidence... So the originals are a myth. There are no originals .". A "myth" is something that is not real. The autographs are real even if they may not have been preserved. O, and btw, we don't know that they have not been preserved. We just know that we have not discovered them. I don't rule out the chance that we may, some day, find some autographs. Or maybe that is just wishful thinking.

If you are saying that you believe there were autographs that we don't currently have then fine, we agree. However your statement that these autographs are not to be cared about is highly problematic. Since the autographs are what the Apostles (etc) wrote with their own hands under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These are the original inspired Scriptures (not copies or translations). These are, of course, important. All of the Scriptures we have today come from these original autographs. Apart from the autographs there would be no Scripture. Over time various manuscripts have developed and part of modern scholarship is to determine which is best (which contains the most faithful version to the original). The differences are minor and affect no major doctrine. There are also translation issues (greek to english). However God has preserved His Word. The New Testament is the best preserved document of ancient history (and so it should be). The evidence for the New Testament is massive and impressive. Christianity is not blind leap into the dark. No. Christianity is a faith with reasons. That is why the unsupportable claims of KJVO is so sad.
_______________________________________

You said:
So there are scholars that have seen the original autographs?

==What I said was, "scholars can determine what the originals said". Thus what you claim I said, "scholars...have seen the...autographs", and what I said are two different things. I am talking about scholars studying manuscripts to learn what the autographs said.

That is the process of textual science. What is the purpose of textual science? Dr David Black, of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, explains: "to recover the original text of the New Testament from the available evidence." (New Testament Textual Criticism, pg 12).
_________________________________

You said:
Circular Reasoning, perhaps? I think for a bit more clarity you should stick to saying copies of the autographs or manuscripts.

==No, the problem was you did not carefully read what I actually said. What I said and what you claimed I said are two different things.
_____________________________________

You said:
Firstly I didn't know that we were discussing the New Testament Only. Maybe I misunderstood?

==I assumed that is what were talking about.
____________________________________

You said:
Martin are you one of those NTO's? Gasp.

==No, I believe in the whole Bible concept. However I am much more familiar with New Testament textual studies than I am with Old Testament textual studies.
______________________________________

You said:
Secondly God has preserved His word. There are copies of copies of copies but there are no original autographs left. They wore out by now. If you read Jerm. 36 you will see that it is obvious that God was not to concerned that the original autograph be retained. He just told the prophet to make a new one.

==What Jeremiah wrote was not a copy, it was a second original (vs27). He did not sit down and copy what was on the other he wrote it out again fresh (vs28). Also, did God order the scroll burned? I don't think so. It seems the King tore and burned the scroll (vss22-25) and then tried to arrest Jeremiah (vs26). Jehoiakim destroyed the first scroll but God had Jeremiah to re-write the scroll. Therefore I fail to see what this has to do with what we are talking about. How does this passage show God did not care about the originals? He had Jeremiah re-write another version (an original not a copy).

______________________________________

You said:
So then just to clear this up, you believe the autographs are perfect and inspired? (I'm not bashing, just making sure)

==Yes (2Tim 3:16-17).
____________________________________

You said:
So that means that when you read your KJV or NASB or any other English version you believe that you don't have the true 100% PERFECT word of God?

==Wrong. We have faithful copies/translations that are the Word of God. As I have said any textual issues are minor and do not affect the meaning of the text. Thus the NASB and KJV are not that different and people who use both come to the same conclusions.
_______________________________________


You said:
That being the case I would in all sincerity, as someone who is not oppossed to learning, like to ask you which Hebrew, Greek texts you believe to be "the autographs" that are perfect?

==I don't believe the Hebrew or Greek autographs have been discovered. However that does not mean we cannot discover what they said (etc) through a careful study of the manuscript copies (etc).
__________________________________

You said:
Gotta go eat supper, I hope to make it back tonight. (Wonderfull ham dinner)

==Sounds good. I had a piece of cold KFC chicken

Martin.