Where is God's preserved word?

[Jordan Kurecki]

Hi Jordan,

I'm still trying to figure out your view. Will you please help me out by answering the questions directly?

Which of Scrivener's several GNTs is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? (publisher and date)

Which edition of the Masoretic Text holds the same status for you as Scrivener's edition above? (publisher and date)

When and by which publisher were both of these editions first put "in any one place" (your words)?

As you said that "the King James Bible" is a faithful translation of the above texts (one of which [MT edition] we still don't know and the other of which is anachronistic since Scrivener's editions were published more than 250 years after the KJV translators' work), which edition (year and publisher) of the KJV is letter perfect?

Last, you said earlier:



This makes it seem like you are questioning whether any one edition of the KJV is letter perfect. Is that right?

Thanks for helping us understand your view better, and for being forthright enough to answer your own questions to the same degree that you expect from everyone else.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

No. I do not see any problems with the "different editions" of the King James that are going around.

This is just going to turn into an argument over whether or not the different editions are actually revisions of error in translation or printing errors that were fixed. which is different.

I really don't feel like having this argument over and over here on the BB.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the purpose of inspiration was to produce originals that were without error AND to provide a self-defining sentence, paragraph, chapter, book and overall context for the words used.

In the transmission of these originals through copying and translating this self-defining context is transmitted. Minor copying and translator errors do not affect this self-defining contextual format as comparing scripture with scripture provides the proper understanding.

For example, take an afgan and look at it. You can see an overall pattern as well as immediate patterns within the afgan. If another person took it and either through wear or negligence cut minor holes in it, another person could study the overall pattern and determine what should fill the holes. Likewise, with Greek and hebrew copies and the minor differences between them can be studied and determined either what should be the proper translation or at least what should be rejected as the proper fill for such a hole. Likewise, with translations of the Greek and Hebrew copies into other languages. The contextual pattern is transferred into the other langauge and by studying the copies in connection with the translation the proper understanding of minor holes can be determined.

Since even the most radical scholars don't challenge over 98% of the Biblical text as faithful to the originals the only less than 2% is disputed. In that less than 2% most are differences of word orders, or omission of definite articles and other minor points that affect no teaching of scripture when interpreted within the contextual pattern. The very few real problems are not significant to overrule the vast amount of scripture on any given Biblical teaching.

However, in regard to transmission lines there are two major lines (1) Traditional or the Majority line of transmission and (2) The Critical line of transmission. Scholars do not deny that the Majority line of transmission is much more consistent with itself and the critical line is much more inconsistent with itself as there are many more problems and differences in this line of transmission. Moreover, this line of transmission is not found between the 4th and 16th century thus leaving only the Majority line of transmission in that period. I believe the Majority line of transmission is the better line, as it is the line used by the free church movement between the 4th and 16th century and continued to be the line of transmission used by God between the 16th and 18th century by evangelicals. The Critical textual line was found and used by those who routinely denied inspiration of the Scriptures and placed secular uninspired history over the scriptures as final authority in interpretation.

Those translations based upon the Majority line of transmission regardless of what language it is translate into provide the best translations of the scripture and make it far easier to understand when properly translated according to the contextual pattern.

Hence, the Bible provides its own contextual pattern of interpretation established by inspiration in the originals. Faithful and diligent study of the Bible regardless whether it is a copy of the originals or a translation of copies of the originals is profitable so that the man of God can be throughly/thoroughly furnished in all doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness and IS the Word of God.

Interesting that you see thiose whoopreferenceto useare the critical texts are not Evangeical, as isn;t the truth though that they are the ones used by translators withnasb/Hcsb/esv/Niv etc , and ALL of them affirmed verbal plenary inerrancy of the original texts, and that those were closest to them to use?

 

[jonathan.borland]

No. I do not see any problems with the "different editions" of the King James that are going around.

This is just going to turn into an argument over whether or not the different editions are actually revisions of error in translation or printing errors that were fixed. which is different.

I really don't feel like having this argument over and over here on the BB.

In other words, you ask others what some might call "baiting questions" which you yourself are not willing to answer in the least. Gotcha. Who's playing games? Can you see why some might think your intentions are insincere?

 

[jonathan.borland]

I really don't feel like having this argument over and over here on the BB.

What argument over and over? I haven't gotten the answers from you to the questions that you yourself ask others. Is it because you don't know? Are you therefore what some KJV Only adherents like to call others, a "Bible agnostic"?

Simply answer the following once and for all and be done with it!

Which of Scrivener's several GNTs is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? (publisher and date)

Which edition of the Masoretic Text holds the same status for you as Scrivener's edition above? (publisher and date)

When and by which publisher were both of these editions first put "in any one place" (your words)?

As you said that "the King James Bible" is a faithful translation of the above texts (one of which [MT edition] we still don't know and the other of which is anachronistic since Scrivener's editions were published more than 250 years after the KJV translators' work), which edition (year and publisher) of the KJV is letter perfect?

 

[prophet]

Do you believe God has preserved his words in any one place in any one Greek/Hebrew text or any translation?

Or are all our bibles subject to error?

How do we determine what is error and what is truth?

Who/What is your final authority?

Please refrain from attacking the King James bible and just answer the questions as honestly as you can.

Yes.

Yes, men make copies, men make mistakes. Mistakes in copying are correctable.

The Spirit beareth witness of the Word. Hearing of the Word brings faith in Him.

The Scripture, no matter what language, is my final authority.
In English, the AV is the culmination of all of the previous English Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and is the Final Authority to the English speaking people.
Any genuine updates to the AV are welcomed, as change in language occurs.
The M.V.s, that include readings from the CT are not the same Scriptures, not an update, and not a final authority, but rather a partial authority, due to tampering. Since this tampering was spelled out by Wescott and Hort, and available for all to see, these partial truth versions are not as faithful to God's Word, and undeserving of the title: final authority.

This is what I believe to be true.

 

[Rippon]

In English, the AV is the culmination of all of the previous English Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and is the Final Authority to the English speaking people.

Are you a prophet or Pontiff? Your dictum carries no weight with us. ;-)

 

[jbh28]

Do you believe God has preserved his words in any one place in any one Greek/Hebrew text or any translation?

God has preserved his words in many places. We have over 5600 Greek manuscripts. Many more Hebrew manuscripts.

Or are all our bibles subject to error?

Our translations, yes. Copies, yes. We are human and copy or translate incorrectly sometimes.

How do we determine what is error and what is truth?

For me, I trust a good translation team like the ones that did the ESV, NASB... Those that have compiled the Greek/Hebrew texts have compared the manuscripts to put what they best believe to be the original reading. Translators have translated these words into English.

Who/What is your final authority? God as he as revealed himself though his Word.

 

[jbh28]

Why can you believe that God can use fallible men to give the originals yet cannot believe God would use fallible men in preserving his word through translation?

The Bible says for the originals, not for translation or copies. No to manuscripts read alike, so obviously they have errors(variants)

The scriptural authority we rest on in the fact that God has promised to preserve his word, we do not believe the critical text theories hold true to this.

TThe ciritical text theory wouldn't make sense if the words were not preserved. The fact that they are preserved is why there is a critical text.

especially considering that the flood of modern critical texts follow the theories of people like Wescott and Hort.

Which you will misquote them below. Here's one example of not only misinterpreting, but removing parts of the actual sentence.


"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). [/quote]He says here that he rejects the word infallibility, he believe(as he said in the parts of the sentence left out, that he believes in the absolute truth of the Scriptures.

My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too "must disclaim setting forth infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."

So the "of Holy Scripture overwhelming was to the part of absolute truth, not infallibility.

In other words: They treated the bible like any other book, ignoring it's divine character and it's divine preservation.

No, not true at all.

Remember, if what you are arguing for is true, you don't have to change peoples words in order to support the view. Now, I'm sure you didn't change the words. You just copied someone else slander just because it supported your view. Hope no one does that to you. It would be a shame for someone to call you an unbeliever after misquoting you.

 

[robycop3]

Prophet:

In English, the AV is the culmination of all of the previous English Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and is the Final Authority to the English speaking people.

Not REALLY. it's simply another translation in the line of English translations that began in the time of William The Conqueror.

Any genuine updates to the AV are welcomed, as change in language occurs.

Then you should have no objections to the NKJV. it uses the same sources as the KJV, while incorporating some of the manuscripts or fragments discovered since the KJV was made. And I'm glad to have some repro copies of the AV 1611, Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale's, and Wycliffe's Bibles to study.

The M.V.s, that include readings from the CT are not the same Scriptures, not an update, and not a final authority, but rather a partial authority, due to tampering. Since this tampering was spelled out by Wescott and Hort, and available for all to see, these partial truth versions are not as faithful to God's Word, and undeserving of the title: final authority.

Can you PROVE any tampering? or, are you merely guessing, or repeating others' opinions?

This is what I believe to be true.

You have the right to be wrong.

 

[robycop3]

Why do you keep playing games?

I believe the Textus Receptus put out by F.H. Scrivener as published by the TBS is the perfect preserved word of God in the Greek. The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew.

I believe the King James Bible to be a faithful translation of these texts.

Now you're turn. answer my questions.

Scrivener's TR came long after the KJV was made. The KJV used Stephanus' edition of the TR. The TR was revised several times after that.

 

[robycop3]

a. 1914--The Testimony of Herman Hoskier.
"The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as `the true text,' and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text." [Herman C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies--a Study and an Indictment, (1914), Vol I, p. 468 (>DBS#1643 for a GIFT of $45.00 + $5.00 for S&H)].

b. 1964--The Testimony of J. H. Greenlee.
"The textual theories of W-H [Westcott & Hort] underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism." [J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (1964), p. 78]

c. 1979--The Testimony of D. A. Carson.
"The theories of Westcott and Hort . . . [are] almost universally accepted today. . . . Subsequent textual critical work [since 1881] accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt." [D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, (1979), p. 75]

d. 1980--The Testimony of Wilbur N. Pickering.
"The two most popular manual editions of the text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H [Westcott & Hort] text." [Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (1980), pp. 42 (>DBS#556 for a gift of $12.00 + $4.00 S&H)].

e. 1987--The Testimony of John R. Kohlenberger.
"Westcott and Hort . . . all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present . . . have adopted their basic approach . . . [and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text." [John R. Kohlenberger, Words About the Word, (1987) p. 42]

f. 1990--The Testimony of Philip W. Comfort.
"But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory . . . this has troubled certain textual scholars. " [Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament, (1990), p. 21]

g. 1990--The Testimony of Bruce Metzger.
In 1990, Dr. Kirk D. DiVietro, a Baptist Pastor, wrote to Dr. Bruce Metzger about how he and the other members of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Committee began their work on their New Testament Greek Texts. Dr. Metzger replied to him as follows:

"We took as our base at the beginning the text of Westcott and Hort (1881) and introduced changes as seemed necessary on the basis of MSS evidence."

Ah, yes, I see all those gents more-or-less said they START their own work BEGINNING with that of W&H. Not one sez he bases his ENTIRE work on that of W&H.

Now, did you study the TRUE quotes of W or H from the link I posted?

And I see you are STILL failing to answer my question about one-version-only doctrines. You're AFRAID to answer it, arent you? You KNOW the CORRECT answer is that there's NOTHING FROM GOD supporting any one-version-only doctrines, don't you?

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah, yes, I see all those gents more-or-less said they START their own work BEGINNING with that of W&H. Not one sez he bases his ENTIRE work on that of W&H.

Now, did you study the TRUE quotes of W or H from the link I posted?

And I see you are STILL failing to answer my question about one-version-only doctrines. You're AFRAID to answer it, arent you? You KNOW the CORRECT answer is that there's NOTHING FROM GOD supporting any one-version-only doctrines, don't you?

Guess all of those scholars were somehow part of that alexandrian cult that intionally decided to corrupt the text, eh?

 

[prophet]

Are you a prophet or Pontiff? Your dictum carries no weight with us. ;-)

The "KJV" claims to "diligently revise and compare the former translations", so I'm just restating that, when I say "culmination...".

God's Word is the Final Authority, to answer the OP, and I believe the KJV to be God's Word in English.

I read Wycliffe, Tyndale, Darby, Webster,as well as several Native American toungues.
I can't stomach the effect of Nestle-Aland on the post Civil War versions.
Especially after reading Wescott and Hort's own letters and hearing their own admission of heresy, doubt, unbelief, and witchcraft.

 

[Rippon]

The "KJV" claims to "diligently revise and compare the former translations", so I'm just restating that, when I say "culmination...".

Myles Smith,you wrote the preface(missing from many KJVs) would be aghast at your strange interpretation of his essay.

God's Word is the Final Authority, to answer the OP, and I believe the KJV to be God's Word in English.

That belief of yours is not biblical faith.

I read Wycliffe,

I'm sure just the second edition.

Tyndale, Darby, Webster,as well as several Native American toungues.[sic]

Are you aware that Darby based his New Testament on the work of Griesbach,Lachman,Tischendorf, and Tregelles,among other textual critics? They of course laid the foundation for the work of Westcott and Hort.

I can't stomach the effect of Nestle-Aland on the post Civil War versions.

Well,then. You need a stronger constitution.

Especially after reading Wescott and Hort's own letters and hearing their own admission of heresy, doubt, unbelief, and witchcraft.

You need to mind your manners and not denigrate godly scholars with such nasty talk.

 

[prophet]

:

Myles Smith,you wrote the preface(missing from many KJVs) would be aghast at your strange interpretation of his essay.

That belief of yours is not biblical faith.

I'm sure just the second edition.

Are you aware that Darby based his New Testament on the work of Griesbach,Lachman,Tischendorf, and Tregelles,among other textual critics? They of course laid the foundation for the work of Westcott and Hort.

Well,then. You need a stronger constitution.

You need to mind your manners and not denigrate godly scholars with such nasty talk.

Direct quote from the 1611 Title Page:
"The Holy Bible containing the OT and the new
newly translated out of the original toungues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special commandment...."

Your condescension is all the more revolting, when you are completely wrong.

 

[Rippon]

:

Direct quote from the 1611 Title Page:
"The Holy Bible containing the OT and the new
newly translated out of the original toungues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special commandment...."

The second phrase is true. The first phrase is false.

 

[prophet]

The second phrase is true. The first phrase is false.

What is false? The fact that I abbreviated "Old Testament"?
Really?
It's a direct quote....from the title page...
Are you so unwilling to admit your own error, that you would deceptively call an abbreviation "false"?

Maybe you are a habitual liar...you seem haughty and defensive.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, until they make an obvious blunder, and won't admit it, when shown.
Apparently now you are just forum stalking me, saying 'nuh-uh' to every post I make.

Get back to me, when you can actually contribute to the debate.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Ah, yes, I see all those gents more-or-less said they START their own work BEGINNING with that of W&H. Not one sez he bases his ENTIRE work on that of W&H.

Now, did you study the TRUE quotes of W or H from the link I posted?

And I see you are STILL failing to answer my question about one-version-only doctrines. You're AFRAID to answer it, arent you? You KNOW the CORRECT answer is that there's NOTHING FROM GOD supporting any one-version-only doctrines, don't you?

THe King James only position is based on the doctrine of perservation.

I have time and time again explained this to you and you just simply refuse to acknowledge the doctrine of perservation.

The King James Only position is based on a the principle of perservation.

Just like the bible doesn't specifically say that smoking pot is wrong, but most of us (I Hope) are aware that it violates biblical principles.

 

[Greektim]

THe King James only position is based on the doctrine of perservation.

I have time and time again explained this to you and you just simply refuse to acknowledge the doctrine of perservation.

The King James Only position is based on a the principle of perservation.

Just like the bible doesn't specifically say that smoking pot is wrong, but most of us (I Hope) are aware that it violates biblical principles.

Yet that is shaky ground... most prooftext for preservation are just that: prooftext. That lack exegetical basis.

 

[Logos1560]

THe King James only position is based on the doctrine of perservation.


The King James Only position is based on a the principle of perservation.

The KJV-only position is not actually based on any consistent view of preservation of the Scriptures using consistent, just measures.

No one Hebrew OT text before 1611 and no Greek NT text before 1611 matches the KJV entirely so a KJV-only position advocates that a new text was in effect created in 1611; therefore, contradicting the claimed basis on preservation.