Still Waiting

Pappy: Why should there be more than one Bible versions?

Because God didn't retire in 1611.

 

Because when it comes to His word,omission is the norm.

Simply put to rest you pre-conceived notions by lookin @ what Scripture itself says about when man meddles with His word..

Eve:Genesis 3.

Balaam:Numbers 22:12,13.

Jehudi:Jeremiah 36.

Satan:Luke 4:10.

It involves OMISSION!!

Whay not look what happens to those that OMIT from His word first? </font>[/QUOTE]You can't prove they're omitted any more than I can prove they were added.

 

No, he still hasn't but the KJV is ALL I need to live by!

 

Someone said:

I do not believe that the KJV is the originals.

Pappy replied:

PPPPPLLLLEEEASSE! What do you think is the original?

You know what they say . . . give a man enough rope . . .

 

Pappy: No, he still hasn't but the KJV is ALL I need to live by!

No prob w/THAT...the prob comes when a KJVO declares the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version. That's equivalent to my declaring Ford is the only valid motor vehicle make there is.

Is YOUR Bible view same as my car view? I use Fords cuz they've given me good service over the years, are comfortable, and adequately fulfill every use I have for a motor vehicle...but I acknowledge there are plenty of other MV makes just as "valid" as Ford, and I have nothing against them. In fact I own a '57 Chevy and a '56 Olds, but they're not my everyday MVs I use for routing jobs.

 

Martin: The New Testament is the best preserved document of ancient history .... The evidence for the New Testament is massive and impressive .... scholars can determine what the originals said .... That is the process 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).

This hits the nail on the head. If KJVOs simply could recognize the matter of textual preservation as it *actually* occurs throughout history, 3/4 of the irrelevant red herring issues and vociferous complaints could be eliminated with profit to all.

I do think Black (and certain other textual scholars) get it wrong when they talk about “restoring” or “recovering” “the original text of the NT from the available evidence,” since this seems to imply that the original text somehow was "lost" during transmissional history and needs again to be "found" and "restored".

I would speak far more circumspectly and say that the goal of text-critical science is to *recognize* and *reproduce* the text which most clearly has been historically preserved throughout the history of the manuscript tradition.

 

AA: when it comes to His word,omission is the norm .... Eve:Genesis 3 ... It involves OMISSION!!

Seems to me that a correct reading of Gen 3 shows Eve was involved in far more ADDITION to God's words than omission of God's words (key readings in CAPS):

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of EVERY TREE of the garden thou mayest FREELY eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt SURELY die."

"The woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of THE FRUIT of THE TREES of the garden: But of the FRUIT OF the tree WHICH [IS] IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN, God hath said, YE shall not eat of it, NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT, LEST YE die."

If this sets the pattern, we probably should be more concerned with unauthorized human ADDITIONS that go beyond what God has plainly declared in his word.

In this light, KJVO-ism tends to be one of those unauthorized additions.

 

Aaaah~robycop, man, ya been holding out on da granny...a '57 Chevy!

 

Do you read the original manuscripts. I would be interested in seeing those. Could you please send me a picture or two of the originals.

So you are telling me that those who can only read the English versions are only getting 98% of what God meant for them to read? You mean to say that there is 2% missing?

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

So if I don't have the originals then I don't actually have every word?

Oh boy, what you are saying sure makes it sound like I am missing something.

Where can I find these originals? </font>[/QUOTE]There is a fault with the premise in Luke 4:4 as a position that support the KJVO position, ff. If so, do we have every single word that God spoke to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Do we have every single word that Jesus Christ spoke to his disciples or others? EVERY WORD OF GOD...Hmmm...somethings is wrong here. Even in your presupposition of "every word of God" something is missing, or so it would seem.

 

So, you don't need an 1828 Websters Dictionary, a concordance, lexicon and all that other good jazz? Hmmm, you're one unusual dude, pappy! LOL

 

Martin: regarding your post on June 28 @ 4:18 PM. I didn't make those statements.

 

Including the apocrypha in the 1611 version? Wow!

 

Someone wrote: "I have said over and over again this issue is not one of doctrine, to be settled by a passage of scripture, but one of history and scholarship. "

Understand - I happen to love the King James, but - historical evidence is against King James.

The bible that was preserved the "longest" over the "longest period of time," is written in ancient languges on papyrus scrolls.

Ergo - the contention that King James translation is the bible preserved by God the longest is wrong.

The King James does not actually translate from the scrolls. It translates from an earlier translation of the bible - and referenced the scrolls at times of confusion.

There was a Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible, and neither was considered "very good".

Previously to these there was what they called "The Great Bible". The "Bishops Bible" was a revision of the "The Great Bible." It was done by bishops of the Church of England. The Geneva bible was actually considered to be more accurate than the Bishop's Bible, but the Bishop's Bible was also the main source of the King James Bible.

The proclomation which resulted in the King James is this: The king rejoined that he:
"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

Three universities and 47 men actually worked on the translations. Westminister, Oxford and Cambridge. Remember though, at this day and age, the number of original scrolls in our possession was small, and our ability to accurately translate ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek was very, very limited.

The very first "rule" given to the translation team is the rule that weakens the belief that King James is the "only" translation.

Rule one of the translation team was: 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.


So basically, they were told to stick close to the Bishop's Bible, which they already knew was flawed.

The second "weakness" is in rule 8:

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

Basically, the 47 men were divided into teams of approximately 7 to 10 men. The bible was divided between the 3 Universities, which divided their section according to the men at their location. After they translated it, made their own opinions on what should or shouldn't be in there, what it did or did not say, they took it to a committee and said, "This is what I came up with, what do you think?"

While this alone does not condemn the King James, it shows, clearly, that it is no different in its translation methods than more modern translations in regards to man's ability to influence the translations vs God's ability to keep it pure.

While the King James was translated by 47 men (for you history buffs going, wait a minute - there were 54 - 54 were chosen, 47 actually worked on it), from 3 Universities, the Universities were all English, and that means the influence was probably Anglican or Catholic.

In regards to more modern translations - such as the NIV or the RSV - the translations teams numbered in the hundreds, and included theologians, historians, linguists, and represented many denominations. They were translated, re-translated, compared, edited, reviewed, re-edited, etc. With every change noted along the way until the final review.

So - if you want to say, "Ancient texts preserved by God matter," then you have to accept that King James is "another translation that tried to capture the true meaning of God's word, in the same way NIV, RVS and others have done."

If you want to say that of all the times the bible has been translated, only one translation team ever got it right - please show some evidence to support your contention that they are "right" and other teams are "wrong."

 

'Tis not yer mommy's Biscayne...Can break every traffic & noise pollution law in the USA.

 

Martin: The last one on page 3.

Gads.