Studies of the Original Texts

You are right. I was typing so fast, giving answers that are so easy to give, that I didn't proofread. It is amazing to me that with all the discussion these things have received that people are still bringing them up as if they are real problems.

 

Lacy Evans said:

1)In 2 Sam 21:19, who was killed?

A giant. Maybe his name was Goliath, maybe not. (There's no rule saying two people can't have the same name, right?)

2) Do you or do you not believe in your heart of hearts that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of 2 Samuel to include "the brother of" in the original autograph,

Maybe it was there originally, in fact it probably was, but there is no evidence of it, so the KJV translators' addition of these words is based on conjecture.

 

Lacy Evans said:

So I guess adding to the "Word of God" is OK when Ransom does it

And I guess "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not in God's perfectly preserved Word for English-speaking peoples, the King James Bible.

At least, you wouldn't think so by the many times its "defenders" resort to that tactic.

 

bryan1276 said:

And then when witnessing to a Muslim (when I used modern versions) I was actually confronted with this: Jesus Christ and the Devil are the same person according to your NIV.

So first you quote an atheistic argument to spread doubt about the Word of God, now you quote a Muslim.

Ironically, it is the KJVers who quote Bible believers as drawing water from the wells of infidelity!

Why don't you get back to us when you are ready to discuss the things of God from a believing point of view, instead of an unbelieving one? It is evident you have not yet taken every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

[ October 04, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

It's not because he "uses an MV." That is a disingenuous falsehood intended to taint the image of the NIV etc. by associating them with the New World Translation.

The truth is, he does not see that it is Jesus talking because he belongs to an organization that teaches otherwise, and has even produced its own perversion of the Bible (and I think everyone here is agreed that the NWT is, in fact, a perversion) to defend that teaching.

Furthermore, I just did a survey of all the Bibles on my shelf - every one that prints the words of Christ in red does so in Revelation 1 as well. Whom should I believe? Translators, or some KJV-onlyist?

When you associate the NIV with the JWs, you only make yourself look foolish.

[ October 04, 2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Ah but you forget I'm much more radical than a KJVOer, I'm a KJV1769Oer!

I believe that God preserves things by resurrecting them because it is clearly shown in scripture.

I believe the 1611 is more "reliable" and more "accurate" when compared to the "original Greek" than the NIV, RSV, NASB, LB, NWT, et.al.. I also believe the TR family of translations is more "reliable" and follows more closely the "oldest and best manuscripts" than the Alexandrian family. I believe these things because of overwhelming fruit. (Quite frankly fruit is all we have to go on because nobody who has lived in at least the last 1500 years has seen an "Original Greek" to make absolutely sure.)

I believe that resurrection is sometimes a process because it is clearly shown in scripture.

But I believe the KJV1769 is perfect. The KJV1769 is the one book that has produced the most fruit, the most revival, the most holiness, in the last 1500 years.

My statement was completely consistent with my position.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Do you wear your self-pronounced "radical" moniker with pride?

IMHO, the posthumous 1769 revision is NOT the perfect KJV. They got it right the first time.

Moreover, the NKJV does a better job with respect to the "more 'reliable' and more 'accurate' when compared to the 'original Greek'" argument you have presented as it compares the manuscripts and demonstrates the differences.

 

&lt;We interrupt this discussion for a quick off-topic question.&gt;

Good Morning!!

Would you be open to starting a discussion about the JW and their beliefs? I have some In-Laws that are JW and I was under the impression that they do not believe that Jesus is the Only Son of God.

Now for the million-dollar question: where would we put this discussion?

&lt;We now return to the topic of discussion.&gt;

 

The root of this whole thing culminated in the Arian Controversy.

The question is:
Who manipulated the Scriptures (actually the copies) reflected in this passage in The Revelation (and many others in other places)? The Arians or the Trinitarians?

For 2-3 centuries the early church was mostly Arian with Arians and Trinitarians dwelling together in peace without a strong Christological definition.

In the beginning, Arians denied an essential element of the Trinitarian deity of Christ but believed as the Trinitarians they however felt that Christ was not eternal.

Arians believed that Christ is/was God in "form" only. Some Arians taught that He was not created but "begotten" in a point in time.

There are many flavors now of Arianism such as the Jehovah Witnesses.

Trinitarians teach He is/was God both in "form" and "essence" from eternity.

It makes sense in hindsight therefore that someone(s) changed the Scriptures in the copying thereof of the originals, but who changed what from/to what?

Myself, I am a convinced Trinitarian and this is one reason (of many) that I prefer the Traditional Text which in most cases is overwhelmingly consistent with Trinitarian doctrine.

That is not to say that those who use MV's are to be stigmatised with an "Arian" label just because of the Aleph/B preference. Although I prefer the KJV, I still use MV's especially the NKJV.

Many feel that nothing of the Christo-centric variants change the essential deity of Christ.

One of the Scriptures involved int the controversy is:

KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

ASV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Apart from the cause of the variant (which also causes endless debate), the mss copies of the originals are either all upper case (uncials) or all lowercase (miniscules) so the that the upper-case "H" of the "He" of the ASV is an interpretation by the translators of the mss (with which we probably all agree), nonetheless it is an interpretation as opposed to the straight-forward "God" of the TR.

The "he" of Aleph/B is uncertain enough for Arians such as the Jehovah Witnesses to prefer it to the TR "God manifest in the flesh".

there are several others and they all seem to stem (IMO) out of the Arian Controversy.

And to be perfectly honest, there would seem to be insufficient historical evidence (yet) as to which side did the changing.

John Burgon makes a very strong case (IMO) for the Traditional Text because of the witness of the early fathers. Wescott and Hort prefer the early date of Aleph/B.

HankD

 

TheOliveBranch said:

But, Ransom, he was told by the advocates of the MV's that the texts which were used were "better and more acurate".

Told by whom, specifically? I have my doubts that "the advocates of the MV's" got together and presented a statement on the subject, as though they were some sort of monolithic organization.

Anonymous testimony proves nothing.

I know well that they use a perversion, but they do not believe that. It is directly because of the MV's that they have come to those conclusions.

This argument is nonsensical. If it were true, how come all non-KJV-onlyists aren't Jehovah's Witnesses?

They also use the texts that the MV's are translated from

Another over-generalization. The NWT "translators" used whatever suited their purpose.

as they also have Interlinear versions to back up what they believe.

If they can deliberately pervert an English Bible, they can pervert a Greek one just as easily.

They have come to this conclusion by using their own perverted Bibles.

Hold on . . . just a few minutes ago you said it was because of the "MV's." Make up your mind.

They are definitely taught false doctrines, but none of the "language" or salvation thru Christ was taught until they had their own translation.

Actually before then the official translation of the Watchtower was the King James Version, and they still taught the same perverted doctrines then as they do now.

 

HankD said:

Apart from the cause of the variant (which also causes endless debate), the mss copies of the originals are either all upper case (uncials) or all lowercase (miniscules) so the that the upper-case "H" of the "He" of the ASV is an interpretation by the translators of the mss (with which we probably all agree), nonetheless it is an interpretation as opposed to the straight-forward "God" of the TR.

Hank, your argument only washes if you can demonstrate a possible antecedent for the pronoun "He" from the text, other than God. Otherwise, the sense of the passage remains the same regardless of that specific word.

 

OK. You provided the standard. Let's see if you are willing to apply uniformly.

Mt 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

"Jeremy", aka Jeremiah, didn't write this prophecy, Zechariah did.

Zec 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

So does the KJV "lie" here or is there a common explaination such as the one given by Pastor Larry for both?... or will you attempt some double standard?

 

Actually Ransom, It's not my argument (I believe the TR "God manifest in the flesh" to be correct). It's the Arian argument that because the older Aleph mss says "he" and not God manifest in the flesh that if "he" is of the original Scripture then it may or may not refer to "God" but Jesus or the Logos, the pre-existant Son of God manifest in the flesh without being a direct reference to His deity. It is however enough to weaken the passage as a proof text of the deity of Christ in the estimation of Arians to prefer it over the TR.

HankD

 

Now I gotta laugh, but I won't because it's still not funny!

Lacy

 

If I misunderstood you when you said:

then I am truly sorry, I reread your posts and I see now that maybe Goliath might have had a brother named Goliath. I can accept that. stranger things have happened. Just look at george Foreman's boys. Sorry.

Lacy

 

Are you asking or accusing? Because if you think it is "self pronounced" then you haven't been folowing along. I've been called everything from a heretic to a heathen, so I just roll with it and go on. I heard that the term "Christian" started out as a derogatory term.

Lacy

 

But this kind of thinking confuses the issue. There are a lot of things that would make verses clearer and harder to distort. Yet clarity is not the test of a reading. Authenticity is. The question we must ask in these matters is not, What is easiest to preach or What is most clear? The question is, What did Paul actually say?

It could well be that the alternative reading found in the KJV rose from the very issue that Hank prefers it for. Someone saw an easy place to clarify and so they added it in.