Translator Question

[Pete Richert]

And please please don't say it is the KJV because it ousted the geneva, but then I will just say obviously the NIV is God's word because it is ousting the KJV. And since this is "obviously" a conspiracy by Satan, then I will say it was "obviously" a conspiracy by Satan for the KJV to oust the Geneva.

The Geneva, good enough for the mayflower, good enough for me

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:

By the way, I do believe God perserved his Bible. In the Geneva Bible. Your scriptures prove their is one book and the Geneva is it. Prove me wrong. Which came first?

The Geneva, of course. By the way, do you really believe the Geneva is the bible in which God preserved his word? That would be an interesting twist to the thread. A GV-only. Just doesn't sound right.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
Are you going to make me find an article on the merits of ancient dentistry now?!?

The only advantage I can think of is the cost. You only need a rock and a stick (or a skate, if you've seen Tom Hanks in Castaway), and some rags to clean up the mess.

 

[Pete Richert]

Was that your answer?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by H.R.B.:
Do you believe that the Jehovah Witness Bible and the Catholic Douay are the word of GOD? Please state why or why not. Thankyou.

If they are faithful translations, then Yes. I know the JW Bible has some places where it is not a faithful translation. I am not sure about the Douay version. The RCC problem is typically not in their version but rather in their magesterium that trumps their version, no matter what they use.

 

[Pete Richert]

And now for H.R.B,

Do you believe the Geneva Bible is the word of God, why or why not?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by H.R.B.:
Dear Paster Larry,
Do you believe that the Jehovah Witness Bible and
the Catholic Douay are the word of GOD? Please state why or why not. Thankyou.

Sister in Christ,
Heidi

Hi Heidi, I'm not Pastor Larry, but I hope you don't mind someone else giving their opinion to your question.

I believe the JW's NWT is "God's word corrupted". It is an example of a group that have previously decided what they wanted scripture to say (ie. what doctrines they wanted to find), and "translated" accordingly. Theirs is an instance of interpret first, translate second - which is backwards, and different from all "mainstream" Bibles.

Yes, I would consider the Douay "the word of God". I don't consider the apocryphal books as inspired scripture, but as a whole I have no problem calling it the word of God. Even the KJV translators indirectly called it "the word of God".

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
Was that your answer?

What'd you expect? A song and a dance?

You asked if the Geneva came before the KJV. I said, "yes."

 

[Pastor Larry]

We can provide you with verses that prove that God will keep his word pure forever, that not a jot or tittle should pass away from the law, that those who add or take away from the bible are antichrist, where Satan changed the word, that Jesus says we live on "every word of God," (not JUST the idea that it contains), that it is trustworthy, and that we have hope in the word.

This was not the question. The question dealt with a verse to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit was not involved in the translation of modern versions.

But while you are on the point, you say that there is a curse on those who add or take away. Does that curse apply to the KJV who added to the Word of God in 1 John 5:7; Acts 9; Luke 17, and several other places?? Or are you inconsistent on this?

Did He or didn't He preserve his word down to the jot or tittle and verbally.

Your KJV has not jots or tittles in it. Those are features of the Hebrew script. Thus, your own KJV denies that promise, if indeed that is what it means. Now obviously, it means something else. You have misunderstood the promise.

Did he or didn't he warn about adding to his words or taking away from his words? There are those of us who believe he did. For some reason this makes us out to be "ignorant," "decisive," "moronic," "a cult," among other and much worse things.

The fact that you believe this is not the problem. The problem comes in where you have misapplied it and failed to be consistent with it. In Col 1:14, the KJV added words to Scripture. Yet I don’t see you calling down curses on the KJV for that. It appears to be a matter of inconsistency, or a matter of misapplication of the biblical truth involved.

Pardon us for believing we have the Truth. Pardon us for wanting to stick to the "old paths," and carry the gauntlet that has been laid down for us.

I am in that camp with you. I believe we have the Truth; I love the old paths, and intend to carry that gauntlet for the rest of my life. I will do it in a modern translation because I preach and work with people who no longer speak KJV English.

We just are not willing to accept that God said something or didn't say something because a "scholar" said so. We'll take God's word for it. That word is the old Book.

Then show us where God said that the KJV is the only word of God. That should settle it very quickly. Of course, that question will go unanswered, just as it always does, because you authority is not truly Scripture in this matter but rather the teachings of men. I only wish that you could see how things really are.

I don’t really care what version anyone uses, provided it is a faithful translation. If you like the KJV, use it, read it, preach it, memorize, study it, and live by it. But be biblical about it: Do not question the faith of those who hold to the biblical doctrine of inspiration while using a modern translation.

 

[Pete Richert]

Okay, I will repost.

Pardon us for being a bit skeptical when someone comes along in 1881 after hundreds of years of agreeing that the KJV was the "Word of God," and tells everyone that "the bible didn't say" this or "the bible actually said," that
or that "the bible really meant," the other thing.

Why did Erasmus do it?

Why did he do it five times?

Why did Beza do it?

Why did all of these people do textual critisim?

By the way, which TR (edition please) are you refering to?

Why not at least be consistant and just count the number of manuscripts for each reading. I would disagree with you but at least it would be consistant. (by the way, see you later 1 John 5:7)

Are you aware of how many times the "majority text" (that is, simply counted the number of manuscirpts that support a reading) is different from the TR (I believe the third edition of stephanus since we do need to pick an edition, since they are all different, and I believe I heard once that things different are not the same!) in 1800 places. I know you are aware because it has been posted here about fifty times. Why are they different? Because Erasmus did textual critisim.

Please respond to the above. But as for the Geneva Bible, please explain why the KJV is the word of God and the Geneva Bible is not.

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
Are you going to make me find an article on the merits of ancient dentistry now?!?

The only advantage I can think of is the cost. You only need a rock and a stick (or a skate, if you've seen Tom Hanks in Castaway), and some rags to clean up the mess.

</font>[/QUOTE]Not to get off topic, but there is another board I read that has a Graemlin that is the smiley face with the center tooth missing, looks kinda redneck. I wish we had that here. I'd use it all the time since I broke my front tooth out eating a taquito about a year ago. I need cheap dentistry.

Okay, to keep this on-topic. All the KJV translators had cheap dentistry, so should we! The new versions promote expensive dentistry because there were modern-day dentists that fixed the teeth of the modern-day translators (hey, I tried).

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
All the KJV translators had cheap dentistry, so should we!

Amen! Even Jesus had cheap dentistry done:

Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
Okay, I will repost.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Pardon us for being a bit skeptical when someone comes along in 1881 after hundreds of years of agreeing that the KJV was the "Word of God," and tells everyone that "the bible didn't say" this or "the bible actually said," that
or that "the bible really meant," the other thing.

Why did Erasmus do it?

Why did he do it five times?

Why did Beza do it?

Why did all of these people do textual critisim?

By the way, which TR (edition please) are you refering to?

Why not at least be consistant and just count the number of manuscripts for each reading. I would disagree with you but at least it would be consistant. (by the way, see you later 1 John 5:7)

Are you aware of how many times the "majority text" (that is, simply counted the number of manuscirpts that support a reading) is different from the TR (I believe the third edition of stephanus since we do need to pick an edition, since they are all different, and I believe I heard once that things different are not the same!) in 1800 places. I know you are aware because it has been posted here about fifty times. Why are they different? Because Erasmus did textual critisim.

Please respond to the above. But as for the Geneva Bible, please explain why the KJV is the word of God and the Geneva Bible is not.</font>[/QUOTE]It looks like you already answered your own questions, so why do I have to answer them too.

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
All the KJV translators had cheap dentistry, so should we!

Amen! Even Jesus had cheap dentistry done:

Mat 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.</font>[/QUOTE]

Now that's funny, folks!

 

[Pete Richert]

I'm sorry. I will ask three questions with no answers.

Why did Erasmus do textual critisism (or whatever you want to call it) and why is it not identical to simply counting the manuscript evidence?

Which version of the TR do you hold to as God's Word without a single word misplaced?

Why is the KJV the word of God and not the Geneva Bible?

Thank you.

 

[Pete Richert]

I'm sorry. I will ask three questions with no answers.

Why did Erasmus do textual critisism (or whatever you want to call it) and why is it not identical to simply counting the manuscript evidence?

Which version of the TR do you hold to as God's Word without a single word misplaced?

Why is the KJV the word of God and not the Geneva Bible?

Thank you.

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
I'm sorry. I will ask three questions with no answers.

Why did Erasmus do textual critisism (or whatever you want to call it) and why is it not identical to simply counting the manuscript evidence?

Erasmus had discovered for himself the Syriac or Byzantine line of texts. Seeing these were superior to the Alexandrian line, and himself observing manuscripts that were taken directly from the Vaticanus that perverted the scripture to a great degree, he decided to catalogue the existing Greek from the Syriac line. That is why Erasmus compiled the texts into the Textus Receptus.

Which version of the TR do you hold to as God's Word without a single word misplaced?

I cannot answer that as I have never personally studied all of the versions of the TR.

Why is the KJV the word of God and not the Geneva Bible?

I have not examined the Geneva bible. Due to this, I cannot attest to its veracity or trustworthiness.

Thank you.

You are welcome.

 

[Pete Richert]

Erasmus had discovered for himself the Syriac or Byzantine line of texts. Seeing these were superior to the Alexandrian line, and himself observing manuscripts that were taken directly from the Vaticanus that perverted the
scripture to a great degree, he decided to catalogue the existing Greek from the Syriac line. That is why Erasmus compiled the texts into the Textus Receptus.

Why is it not the same as the "majority text" (once again, defined as the reading with the most manusript evidence). Why did he say (in your own words) "This isn't part of the bible"? Why did he do five revisions? Was his first revision not the word of God? Was his second not the word of God? Which revision was the word of God? (might I add in case our we forget, things different are not the same)

I cannot answer that as I have never personally studied all of the versions of the TR.

Do you believe there is a Greek text called the Receieved Text that is perfect in every word, or is the perfect in every word Bible only in English (that is the 1769 edition of english)?

I have not examined the Geneva bible. Due to this, I cannot attest to its veracity or trustworthiness.

It seems like a no brainer to me, the Geneva Bible is does not say the same thing as does the KJV in every instance from Genesis to Revelation there for it should not be the word of God. Do you agree or disagree with this? A simple yes or no please, before your explain your answer.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is not working today. He 110%+ is. My point was that, I believe the Bible was completed in 1611 with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide the translators in translating ust the why God meant for it to be.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the translation of the Modern Versions. Truthfully, I believe the spirit of the devil had something to do with them. Sure, they contain God's word, you can even get saved from reading the Gospel from one, but as I said earlier, the wrong spirit is there.

I asked you for some biblical support of which you offered none. Why not? Do you have no biblical support?? I believe Scripture was completed in ad95 with the writing of revelation instead of 1611. I can affirm without mental reservation that the Spirit is most certainly active in faithful modern versions today. To attribute them to Satan is a most unwise thing to do. It cannot be supported by Scripture and amounts to an emotional argument designed to prey on those without biblical training to know the difference. Again, I would suggest that you offer some biblical support or offer an apology and retraction. I see no other options.</font>[/QUOTE]When I say Satan is behind the movement of the new translations, I believe I am using righteous judgement. Satan perverted God's word in the garden when he told Eve around 90% of the truth and look what happen. The modern versions(some) have 90% of the truth in them. Also, God does not speak in an audible voice, He uses His word to speak to us with the help of understanding from the Holy Spirit. With that said, how can you not believe in a perfect word of God? Is every version out there the word of God? Why or why not?

Pastor Larry, by your name I take it that you are a pastor. My question to you is, if I came to your church with my King James Bible, can I follow along word for word as you read each and every time from the Bible?

BTW to anyone, what is IMO? Also, FYI I am a boy, hear me roar.

 

[Ransom]

I said:

Why don't KJV-onlyists ever make theological assertions they can demonstrate biblically?

Refreshed replied:

The virgin birth occurred.

Nice attempt at changing the subject, but I was referring to your assertion (for which you provided no theological proof whatsoever) that the Holy Spirit was involved in the translation of the King James but not in the modern versions. To wit:

If it were not for one person back in 1611, the translators then would be as they are today. That person is the Holy Spirit. . . .
I do not believe that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the translation of the Modern Versions.

I suppose, however, that had I made such a reckless and questionable theological claim as you, I would also want to change the subject rather than have to answer for it.

And why can't they make their case without blaspheming?

I believe that the KJV is the Bible God gave to the english-speaking peoples.

There you go, making unsupported theological claims again, i.e. "God gave" the KJV in some way that he did not "give" the NIV or NASB.

Present your credentials. Who are you, that I should just accept ex cathedra assertions like the above without Biblical proof that the assertions are true?

Anyway, again you avoided what I really said. I was referring to this:

Truthfully, I believe the spirit of the devil had something to do with them.

So you believe the Devil was responsible for the Word of God, eh? Didn't Jesus say that attributing the works of God to the Devil was an unforgivable sin?

No wonder I called you "reckless" and "intemperate." KJV-onlyists apparently think they can spread their garbage to the four winds as though it were God's own truth.

You will make account for your words before Almighty God, I can assure you. "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:36).

Pardon us for believing we have the Truth.

You may believe you have the Truth, but the fact is you are peddling a false gospel.

We just are not willing to accept that God said something or didn't say something because a "scholar" said so.

And yet you expect us to accept what you say because you said so. Hypocrisy, thy name is "KJV-onlyism."

Shameful.

The really sad part of this is, you have the temerity to demand that I treat you nicely while you reserve for yourself the right to run roughshod over God's holy Word with impunity.

[ December 12, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]