Willful Ignorance?

[Spirit and Truth]

Orvie:

Hence, willful ignorance.

S&T:

So are you then telling us that your translation is superior to Granny G's?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:

--------------------------------------------------
ScottJ quoted:

Some are willfully ignorant but others are willfully self-deceived. They insulate themselves with sophisticated null statements. One of our esteemed members writes lengthy, winding posts that in the end prove absolutely nothing because they are founded on nothing more than logical fallacies, false premises, and presumptions.
--------------------------------------------------

Scott,

You couldn't have made a more accurate statement about those who cling to and stand for the modern versions which have altered God's pure and perfectly preserved words for the english speaking people.

Not a single time Michelle have you shown our logic faulty, our premises false, nor that we attempt to establish "fact" by presumption. You and every other KJVO to post here have done all three.

BTW, Why do you keep avoiding the meaty questions? What are you afraid of?

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Spirit and Truth:
Orvie:

Hence, willful ignorance.

S&T:

So are you then telling us that your translation is superior to Granny G's?

I have preferences, as she does. I'm just not saying my version beats up your (her) version.

 

[Ed Edwards]

GrannyGumbo: " ... I do not understand ... "

Yes, we know. It is part of being willfully ignorant.
The ignorant don't know so they miss a lot.

Here is something missed. There are two
major groups of Modern Version users:

1. the 70% MV-ites believe the Bible is
inerrant in the unavilaable origional autographs.

2. The 20% MVites believe all faithful
versions are the written word
of God preserving for us English users
the message (words) of God.

Details of the split are found in my survey:

Is your Bible inerrant?

 

[Phillip]

Ed, I humbly ask you if your words are not somewhat "loaded" when asking your survey. As you an I both know, surveys can be skewed based on the way they are worded.

Let me try to explain myself, I as an MV believe that God's Word is maintained in MOST of the Modern translations as well as the KJV are the "inerrant" Word of God. HOWEVER, it does not match your definition of "inerrant". When I say inerrant, I mean that the Bible contains ALL of the MESSAGE of GOD with great accuracy. The fact that there may be translational "wording" errors --- and I pause at the use of "error" especially when dealing with young Christians. I try to temper it with, translational "differences" or "translational" ....(okay, you got me, I'm blank this morning). Do you see what I'm trying to say?

I believe we can still call a Bible "inerrant" from a "Word of God" point of view, but we will still have translational anomolies (yeah, there's a good one.) that do not have an effect over the specific "Word of God", the doctrines or the messages.

There is a difference.

 

[Trotter]

Exactly, Phillip.

The more I learn, the more I realize that I have so much more to learn.

Until recently, I did not understand all the hub-bub about the differences in Greek manuscripts. I think that LarryN posted an excellent piece in another thread on it. I have also found a lot of really good information on the subject. All of this (plus a lot of input from here on the Board, and their sources) has really opened my eyes to the fallacy of clinging solely to the TR.

Up until then, I thought textual criticism was a totally evil thing, designed to try to destroy the Bible from the inside out. Well, it can be used for that, too, but now I understand how it can be, and is, used for constructive purposes.

When I open my bible, I want to read what was originally written by the original authors, not what was edited by Meothusion the camel dealers' son, not what Sothinus thought it should have said, or what Homodius thought ought to be added for clarification. And that is where textual criticism comes into play.

I guess it is easier for me to think of it like this: My wife used to babysit her cousin's three kids. When something happened, she questioned each one seperately (she already knew she was going to get three different versions, anyway). Then, by sifting through the varied testimonies, she was able to come up with what actually happened, how it happened, and who was involved. Yeah, my wife is pretty sharp. Wait, she married me...uhhh, tempoary insanity?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Trotter:
I guess it is easier for me to think of it like this: My wife used to babysit her cousin's three kids. When something happened, she questioned each one seperately (she already knew she was going to get three different versions, anyway). Then, by sifting through the varied testimonies, she was able to come up with what actually happened, how it happened, and who was involved. Yeah, my wife is pretty sharp. Wait, she married me...uhhh, tempoary insanity?

In Christ,
Trotter

Your wife chose wisely, Mr. Trotter

This is a great example of finding the truth. Police officers (right robycop?) do the same thing when they interview witnesses. They not only consider "who the witness is and the credibility of that witness" they also consider all the factors. How close that witness was to the scene and how much they saw. If the witness would have a motive to add their own fiction to the story and on and on. A good cop, as with a good Biblical scholar, can bring forth a lot of truth.

If there is a question as to which part of a story is right, then if they are not trying to hide anything, they will tell you in the margin what different manuscripts say and let YOU decide for yourself if it is important. Most of the time, doctrine is never an issue.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Howdy Gents!

Now back when I was a little girl, my mama, my granny & my great-granny all lived together. Not one of us had a Bible with "notes" written in the margins or anywhere...it was just plain Scripture. We didn't have study books, the use of a library, or the 'net. Just Bible. Guess we was all really ignorant, eh?!

We used to play something called the telegraph game, where one cousin would start off a sentence & then they'd whisper it as best they could to another, etc, etc, till it got to the last cousin(boy, there were lots!) & then that one would "try" to repeat what was originally said...of course, it was totally messed-up.

To me, that's how it is with the kjBible vs. the others. They took the message from the kjBible(which took its message from the genuine thing)& that's how I see it.

From what I've read on here, by scanning most of the info y'all post, there are only 2 strains: the TR & the WH. The TR is what my Bible came from & the others come from WH. Good vs Evil.

 

[Phillip]

Howdy Granny

....back from court. My client won her case and got her protective order.

It says "This court orders KJVo's from harassing the plaintiff" haha I'm just joking....

We had to look in on the Nichols trial while we were there, that thing is dragging on. Ole' Mr. Nichol's looks cute in his black suit. Not bad for a man who is charged with conspiracy and first degree murder of 161 individuals. My client is a young lady who had not been around the court-house much so I took her to the Nichol's trial to see some history in the making.

Anyway, back to the Bible. It is a little more complex than just good and bad. I am not an expert on this so the scholars can correct me. Throughout the years, many older manuscripts have been found. Most of those manuscripts (whether or not they came from Alexandria) seem to leave a few words out here and there based on their age.

Most scholars feel that the older the manuscript is, the closer it is to the original. Your telephone game is a good description of newer manuscripts. They were hand copied which left a lot of room for either small additions or even a few subtractions here and there.

The big point that I am trying to make is that these few words have not effected doctrine in any way, shape or form. When someone claims that words have been left out and they make a list of English words, then this is USUALLY not because of the old manuscripts, it is usually simply because the translator used a different word or phrase to mean the exact same thing. Most of the word for word comparisons are not very accurate for that reason.

There are Bibles today that are translated from the Textus Receptus such as the NKJV. It too uses different words because it is translated using more modern English. As Skan said in one of his posts, there is another Modern English Bible available on the web called the MKJV (which is I believe: Modern KJV). It supposedly uses the Textus Receptus.

Another thing to remember is that the TR is only for the Greek New Testament. Most all translations use the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. Since the Jews kept it through Jesus' day, it was better preserved (even though it was older) because of all of the Jewish Synagogues that had copies of it in the form of scrolls or other forms.

I am just explaining what I understand and I also know that it is okay for us to disagree and maybe we just wind up agreeing to disagree on this point, but I hope you realize that I know you are a Christian and I hope you believe the same of me. You remind me a lot of my mother and her devotion to the Word of God.

She was as much of a Christian as anybody I know. This is one of those areas where you do not understand God's purpose in our lives because her life was cut short and she suffered from incurable Parkinson's and other problems for over 15 years, the last ten of which was entirely bed-fast. I do not know why God put her through that, but I do know that it strengthened my walk with the Lord and now I can be comforted knowing she is praising God in His presence today.

I know I am getting off track and I know there are issue we do not agree on, but I have really grown to appreciate you and your faith in the Lord.

By the way, are you serious that there were not even references to other scriptures in the KJV that you had? I don't think I have seen one without at least references to other scriptures.

I'm going home now, be back on the net later tonight. God bless you!

 

[GrannyGumbo]

You is on da right track, jack...I mean, Phillip! You've taken time to talk to an ol'granny in a kind gentle way & have treated me decently. That's class! I would've loved your dear sweet mama had I known her.

Thanks for telling me all that stuff, but you know that I'll still keep on keeping on with the same ol'duct-taped ancient plain black Book.

I've had fun harassing ya, tho! God bless you now and always bro!

 

[dianetavegia]

Granny, Granny, Granny! You're NOT OLD! I repeat... YOU ARE NOT OLD! We've got a lot of ladies older than you~~ I'm only a few years younger than you and I'm a spring chicken. LOLOL

Diane

 

[GrannyGumbo]

But diane, diane, diane dearest~ I ARE old and I feels OLD...tho' I did just write it ol', so I'm not tooo old, but I am definitely an old-fogey, eh?!

I likes yur "chick"hen,

& I hope ya do well on the garage $ale...mine lasted 8wks last year & I made a couple of thou$and. I'd come help ya if I lived closer.

 

[dianetavegia]

Well my knees are aching tonight, Granny! I dropped my cast iron skillet while putting it away and it landed on my left ankle. Big Black Bruise! OUCH!

Thanks Granny! I wish you were closer and I'd let you help me!