37818
Well-Known Member
Texts that were used were no doubt worn out and replaced by copies.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible wars.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
Would the Apostles themselves held unto their own Originals and had copying right away?
37818
Well-Known Member
We have no basis to suppose euch a thing.
God never promised man to have every single individual word. To say He did, would spit in the face of men who lived during times such as when the Vulgate was the main version. God's truth has never once changed because the different variants we have. You can pick up the Vulgate and get everything you need to know. Kjvo peeps needs to stop pretending verses like Psalms 119:89 mean God promised no variants. Cuz as I said what did those verses mean before 1611 or before we had access to the plethora of manuscripts we have today. Did Psalms 119:89 means something different 1000 years ago? Or did it mean what it always mean, God's word is settled in heaven. And since I kinda already know what some would say, No God does not need a printing press or the English language to make sure his words are preserved for us. The Latin Vulgate of 500 AD did not have a gazillion variants between the different Vulgates. And as Pickering showed in his book, it was possible to almost perfectly copy manuscripts and hand them down.
Last edited:
The Vulgate, Geneva were just as much the Bible as Kjv is!
What the heresy did you just say to me???? Just kidding, yeah I find it stupid promoting any version so much higher than another based off of manuscripts. When the Christian world literally used the Vulgate for a 1000 years. If there was a perfect Bible/translation it would have been the Vulgate.
Guess Jesus commanded us to go out and be missionaries to the world, yet knowing had no word of God to give to them until 1611!
37818
Well-Known Member
While that may be technically true, God still requires us to live by His every word, Luke 4:4.
KJVO is an excuse to deny Psalms 119:89.
So how did John Wycliffe and William Tyndale live by every word when they didn't have every word? Why does that verse apply only to people who come after 1611 and not the 5000 years before it. You are misunderstanding that verse. That verse in luke as well Deuteronomy was describing men who think they can live life without God. You see it everyday. People eat food, live in fancy houses and breathe air while pretending that God is not there giving them every single breath they breathe. But man can't live without God. The food he gets, the clothes he wears, the breath he breathes is all from God. It is foolish to try to live by bread and physical things alone. God can defy the laws of nature, cause it to not rain, send an earthquake, give a man a heart attack without even lifting a finger. And man won't be able to explain a thing. On the contrary God can save a man's life when doctors and physical things had no chance of saving. Man can't live by bread alone. He needs an almighty God that is gracious enough to allow him to live and provide everything from rain to his breath. Now read that passage in Luke and tell me Jesus was referring to some perfect translation that would be around 1600 years from then.
37818
Well-Known Member
As far as they knew, did they not have the very word of God? The issue in this thread is where a very word of God is in dispute. John 1:18, ". . . God" or ". . . Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
And what does it matter? Does this verse chance any doctrine? Is the doctrine of sin, salvation, Trinity affected at all? If it was one way or the other and we never knew there was a variant would the Bible still be true? Would it be nice to not have any variants? Sure, but that is not how God chose to do things. We have a "problem" nobody can say for 100% sure if it is God or Son. But at the end of the day it does not matter, unless you make it an issue, in the same way people who loved the Vulgate made an issue of Erasmus's Greek text because it differed from the Vulgate in places. But now guess what nobody uses the Vulgate and the textual variants people thought were such a big deal back then, mean nothing now.
37818
Well-Known Member
The difference, another God with the Father or the Son with the Father? 0.4% of manuscpts to be favored over the 99.6%? At least the wrong KJVO are in defence of what they think is the true word of God.
Last edited:
So what. Have you gone through the Vulgate and seen how many readings it has that are not supported by any Greek text such as 1 John 5:7. Highlighting a textual variant and pretending it means something major is exactly what people who read the Vulgate did when Erasmus produced his Greek text. Is the Son God? Yes he is. He is also the only begotten God. As the God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are not begotten. To try and pretend this variant means something sinister is retarded. You are making mountains of a mole hill.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
You really do not understang or believe in or care about the actual inerrant word of God. In this one case example, in John 1:18, either, "God" or "Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," is really the inerrant word of God.
Ohh I certainly wish there was no variants. I wish in this verse all manuscripts said God or Son. However the fact remains is that we have variants. You can say .4% have the reading God and therefore we should take 99.6%. Now I have no issue with someone taking that stand. But to pretend the .4% of manuscripts that have it mean nothing is wrong. The two papyri that have it are some of the earliest manuscripts we have. They have manuscripts, albeit very small. If they looked at this passage and had 0 manuscripts that read this way and changed it to God, I can agree with you. They aren't basing this reading on nothing. It makes way more sense why someone who reads begotten son elsewhere on John would think it belongs here as well, especially since the two Greek words are very similar. Now you say one is correct and the inerrant word of God is at stake. One has to be right and the wrong and not what God said. And you are correct. But to pretend we didn't have textual variants for thousands of years and pretending that only now they matter is foolish. As I have already said, the Vulgate has many more readings that have less support that John 1:18, and God chose to use the Vulgate longer than any Bible we have right now. Now explain to me why God would use the Vulgate for so long even though it had more textual variants in it than any Bible we have today. The reason why is because IT DOES NOT MATTER. We have God's truth in the Vulgate, we have God's truth in the two papyri that read different. We have God's truth in the 99% of other manuscripts. We have God's truth in the king james, NIV etc. Nobody put a major fuss over variants until kjvo morons. Men like tyndale and Wycliffe both believed their Bible was true and inerrant just as much we do today. Wycliffe used the Vulgate. Tyndale used the TR. Today we mainly use UBS/Aland. Funny how three generations of Christians use different texts with different readings and variants, and yet all still believe the same core doctrines.
This is like that only begotten or one and only, saying same thing by different wording!
I cab use the Kjv Nkjv nas Esv etc , all use all of them to prove all essential and primary Christian doctrines!
Don't both views agree Jesus is also God?
Eramus himself did NOT have 1 John 5:7 reading in his first 2 Greek texts, as was added later due to "pressure"
We have an Infallible, not Inerrant Bible, as that was reserved for originals!
- Status