Featured Where is God's preserved word?

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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.

 

Prophet:

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

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.

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

You have the right to be wrong.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.