Why is textual criticism only wrong when it disagrees w/ the readings in the KJV?

Modern translations seem to take away from the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth.

Fortunately, things are rarely as they "seem" to KJV-onlyists.

 

...the problematic "science" of dating applies to everything we "discover"--see the evolutionists and the ambiguities of their "dating dilemma". How old is it? Sure looks old. It has not yet been a week since the creation--in God's time. Our time on this planet is like a vapour--not long. What do we know about time?

I find it hard to believe God has not given us all we need to get us through The Rapture. Did millions of saints die for The Faith not having sufficient revelation from God? Do we not believe what He has shown us thus far?

Why do millions of people think Joseph Smith Jr. was given plates from God which contained more revelations for "saints in the latter days"? Some would say they are given over to strong delusion that they believe a lie.

It is no wonder--Satan himself is become an angel of light.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Only in its context.

If we are so interested in translating correctly, why do we continue to transliterate "baptizo"? Because "immersion" does not fit a lot of "Christian" doctrine. I have always advocated the correct translation of the word for baptize. It was some pedobaptists of old who chose a transliteration. You need to do some further work on studying the word for baptize. It traces back before the NT. Its secular usage can mean to dip immerse, wash and it is also used in a description of a boat sinking.

Modern translations seem to take away from the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth.


Seem to take away? Don't blame it on a translation. It not a translation that takes away. Many Christians in other countries do not even have a complete Bible yet they share their faith. Doctrines are being taken away by lazy believers who sit in church Sunday after Sunday who never share their faith. I have many MV's along with some Greek and Hebrew texts. What I have found is that the majority of those in church do not share their faith and do not know what to share if they had the opportunity. All that most of them know how to do is to invite another to church. Speaking as a pastor I have found that those who are not sharing their faith are also content to be shackled by Satan and his ways. They get mad when you ask them to come with you. But I also know that we have congregations who are too lazy to study and pastors who only give them water instead of meat never taking people with him teaching them to share their faith. The problem is not in the translation but in the team of believers who are lazy or so weak they cannot or will not move.

Personally I think it would be much better if churches went to one service in Sunday and the erst of the times mmet for sharing their faith and some serious study of scripture where lessons are prepared and the people are to come with their lesson done. In every church I pastored I have done this and people have begun to share their faith. There were some who didn't like it because they didn't have any excuses for not having time to share their faith. But the fact is every church has grown in depth and numbers. I believe every church that shares its faith with non-believers and studies scripture will grow in depth and in numbers.

 

What would you suggest one do with the corrupted text? You do realize that much of the commentary that was made in the margins of earlier copies in an effort to explain the text made their way into later copies.

 

Sorry, someone mentioned that the dating of things archaeological is problematic. If that be true, it seems logical to apply such a notion to copies of manuscripts. If the subject is not germane to the topic, please forgive my intrusion.

It seems reasonable that "who copied it and when" is important when trying to decide which copies are closest to that which was revealed.

Agree about pieces of scripture--how much scripture does it take for "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" to be revealed? "Unto Him be glory in the Church..." doesn't take long either.

Then what? "You shall be witnesses(martyrs) of Me(Jesus) in Judea, Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth."

Most of us know not what witnessing is about.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Correct, Bro. James! I agree with you.

I see that they twisted any important doctrines.

That is right. It is "rationalism" thinking. I studied on it and saw the difference between consistently Christian method and naturalistic method.

 

Wrong! You gave mis-information. You must remember - we have God and the satan. The satan dealt deceitfully among the textual criticism, but God has His power to preserve His Words for us. That is how we get the Bible for our mother tongue, namely the KJV.

 

TEXTUAL CRITICISM see CRITICISM (sense 5)

CRITICISM 5. scientific investigation of literary documents to discover their origin, history, or original form: often called TEXTUAL CRITICISM

"criticizing the text" means more like:

CRITICISM: 3. the act of finding fault; censuring; dispaproval

Hense Ed said: //Sorry, 'textual criticism' has NOTHING to do with 'criticizing
the text'.//

'textual criticism5' is a postive act
'criticizing3 the text' is a negative act

Again, I use the King James Versions (KJVs) so much i even
have three paper copies within arms reach of my computer
keyboard.

Hense Ed said this true statement: //Sorry, 'textual criticism' has
NOTHING to do with 'criticizing the text'.//

 

Spoudazo, why are these W-H Baptists and these TR Baptists fighting each other over the textual criticism? Over Bible translation? (See Amos 3:3 KJV)

 

Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . .and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (ERASMUS AND THE N. T., p. 69).


KJV defender Edward F. Hills acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectual emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with at least two of them kept in the KJV
(see KJV DEFENDED, p. 208).

 

What is NAU?

 

)

Better than old NASB? What's wrong with the old NASB?

Interestingly, NASB (1995) changed back to some words that the KJV has because these words in NASB (1995) agreed with the KJV.

 

robycop3, you are kidding, I hope? I take it that this statment comes from someone who has actually done Textual Criticism for themselves? There is no doubt that most of the versions after the King James have corrupted the Word of God, especially when it comes to the Person of Jesus Christ. I do NOT believe that the KJV is 100% right in its text, as I kown that this is incorrect. However, it is by far the most accurate, not so much in grammer and choice of words, but in giving the true text in places where they have been corrupted by so-called "modern" versions. I shall give five examples

1. Luke 1:35, where the words "of thee" have been removed, even though it was known to Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D); Irenaeus (130-200); Tertullian (160-225); Hippolytus (170-236); Cyprian (200-258),etc. Showing that the reading of the KJV is older by over 200 years than the "oldest" Greek manuscripts! These two words, literally translated, "out of you", shows that the human nature of Jesus Christ was actually derived from the Virgin Mary, though without sin. The early gnostics taught that the human nature of Jesus was not real!

2. John 3:13, where the words, "Who is in heaven" have been removed, which clearly teach the Deity of Jesus, that while He was on earth talking to Nicodemus, He was at the same time "in heaven" with the Father! These words were known to, Hippolytus (170-236); Origen (253- heretic); Dionysius (264); Chrysostom (407); Hilary (367); Ambrose (384) etc.

3. Acts 8:37, this whole verse has been removed! Here we have a very clear testimony to the fact that Salvation is in Jesus Christ alone, and the devil working through willing hands, made sure that it was removed! Supported by, Irenaeus (130-200); Cyprian (200-258); Augustine (430), most ancient versions, etc.

4. Acts 20:28, where "God" has been substituted by "Lord". The former reading is another clear testimony to the Deity of Jesus Christ! Supported by Athansius (373); Basil the great (379); Epiphanius (403; Chrysostom (407); Ambrose (384), again most ancient versions.

5. 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifested" has been changed to "He who", or "Who" John Burgon, in his volume, The Revision Revised", has over 90 pages on this verse, and shows beyond any doubt that the original reading of the apostle Paul is how the KJV has it. Dr Burgon has yet to be proven wrong over 100 years later!

Such is the great importance in the study of Textual Criticism, and the intergity of the KJV as a translation of the original documents!