words of truth

Psalm145 3, I took my post graduate degree in textual criticism. I believe the bible is the verbally and plenarily inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved word of God. You will not find a stronger defender of the KJV then I, but I defend it from a defensible position, not one of bombastic extrapolation from the KJV backwards.

I believe the KJV is the word of God in English, and superior to all other English bibles. Superior to the other versions based on the Alexandrian textform due to my belief that the Byzantine textform, from which the KJV was (largely) translated, is the superior textform, and superior to the other versions based on the same textform due to the superior translation technique used.

However, your claim to believe in "perfect preservation" is somewhat ambiguous. If the KJV is the "perfectly preserved" word of God, how do you respond to the changes which have been made? For instance, which reading of Exodus 26.8 is, in your opinion, correct, "The length of one curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and the curtains shall be all of one measure." Or, "The length of one curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and the eleven curtains shall be all of one measure." The first quote is from the AV1611 and the second is from the AV1762/1769. Which one is the "perfectly preserved" word of God?

Next, which Hebrew OT text is the "perfectly preserved" word of God in Hebrew? There are at least two major text types to choose from. Which one do you believe to be the "perfectly preserved" Hebrew text, and why?

Which Greek text is the "perfectly preserved" word of God in Greek? There are two major and two minor text types to choose from. Which one do you believe to be the "perfectly preserved" Hebrew text, and why?

Of the Greek text you believe to be "perfectly preserved" which manuscript out of all the manuscripts of that text do you believe to be "perfectly preserved" and why?

I appreciate your time you will have to take to answer these questions, and await your answers.

 

Is there solid evidence to support any of the Hebrew or Greek text types over the other? Most of what I have seen regarding the acceptance of one or the other is based on presuppositions or agreement with a particular doctrine that has already been accepted, and is used as a determining factor.

If you go all the way back to the time of the hand-produced manuscripts, isn't the earlier date the only objective standard that we have to accept a text form?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
If you go all the way back to the time of the hand-produced manuscripts, isn't the earlier date the only objective standard that we have to accept a text form?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. That must be weighed against the number of mss copied (which did scribes view as reliable, and which mss did they reject) and acceptance and use by the Spirit-led church.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
Is there solid evidence to support any of the Hebrew or Greek text types over the other? Most of what I have seen regarding the acceptance of one or the other is based on presuppositions or agreement with a particular doctrine that has already been accepted, and is used as a determining factor.

If you go all the way back to the time of the hand-produced manuscripts, isn't the earlier date the only objective standard that we have to accept a text form?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Personally I tend to view the evidence this way:

1. consistency of the MSS evidence (objective)

2. historic acceptance/use of a text (objective)

3. cross textual affinities (objective)

4. number of witnesses (objective)

5. number of archtypes (subjective)

These have led me to believe the Byzantine textform is superior to the Alexandrian textform for the following reasons:

1. There is an internal consistancy in the Byzantine textform that is lacking in the Alexandrian textform.

2. The Byzantine textform has been most widely used and accepted by historical Christiandom.

3. Cross textual affinities tend to support the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform (IE, there are more Byzantine readings found in Alexandrian texts than Alexandrian readings found in Byzantine texts).

4. The number of witnesses (independent, without exemplar/copy relationships) favors the Byzantine textform over the Alexandrian textform.

5. The number of archtypes tends to indicate the Byzantine textform is at least as well represented in ancient archtypes as the Alexandrian, and the descendants of those Byzantine archtypes eventually supplanted the descendants of the Alexandrian archtypes.

Professor Maurice Robinson has done some excellent work in this area.

 

The idea that the KJV is translated better and closer to the ORIGINAL text penned by the authors i believe is an accurate statement. But the idea that the other versions are not the Word of God, that they are errant, fallible, and satanic, is what I roll my eyes at. Especially the idea from KJVO's that you have to get saved by using a KJV Bible.

Until Next Post, Adam

 

You mean you don't need the KJV to get saved???

 

To Psalm 145:3

Beware of the Bible school educated. They can confound the average man with words. No doubt they are sincere but it all boils down to the same end result. What good is an imperfect word. It is like giving a thirsty person a cold glass of water and telling them it is 99.9% pure, there is 0.1% anthrax in the glass....enjoy"

God did not require us to be Greek or Hebrew scholars to know, without a doubt, that His Word is 100% reliable. He is more than able to do that in spite of all the efforts men have made over the centuries to weaken pervert,water-down and make it as ineffective as possible. All we need to do is BELIEVE it. He promised He would and He did. It is too simple and logical, like salvation itself.

The KJV is not necesary for salvation, praise God. He still works in spite of the way man has mutilated His word.

 

&gt;&gt;Beware of the Bible school educated. They can confound the average man with words.&gt;&gt;

OH, does that include Dr. Peter Ruckman as well?

HankD

 

Hank:

Yes!

If someone could dissprove that the KJV is God's perfect, inerrant, infallible word for me today and lead to the one that is...and prove it.....I would believe it.

It is long past time that we step back from this issue and see who the real enemy is.

Most fundamentalists today reject that God could or would preserve His word, perfect for us in our English today, without realizing the weight of that rejection. We have the bible, they say, but it is not in any one version.

The power of satan has been undermined.

If he can weaken the effectiveness of The Word and pervert it, If he can get us to doubt it's accuracy, he can foil Gods attempts to lead, guide and teach us. If satan is going to be consistent with his nature, he must attack the Bible, the very word of God.

I like what Ruckman has to say about the whole issue but his delivery needs a little refining.

This is very complex and dates back to the time of Origen, perhaps earlier.

It is, as one scholar has said of the perversion of the Holy Scriptures "A lie wrapped up in a puzzle"!

We should never underestimate the power and the importance of scripture. As Rev Sam Gipp says in his book "An Understandable History of The Bible", the Bible is the " crowning work of the Holy Spirit. It is the lifeline of earth-bound Christians to the
Heaven-seated Saviour".

How we could ever permit unbelievers to tinker with this precious Word over the centuries is a mystery to me. Then how we could get sucked into the belief that "easier-to-read" is better is beyond comprehension. It can only come from one other source. Guess who. That's right!

There is only ONE truth.

God bless as you seek it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
If someone could dissprove that the KJV is God's perfect, inerrant, infallible word for me today and lead to the one that is...and prove it.....I would believe it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Alex, you demand evidence from others that the KJV is not the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God, but you refuse to offer your evidence that the KJV is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God. Do you have a double standard? Do you expect more from the "other side" than you are willing to give? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is long past time that we step back from this issue and see who the real enemy is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. The real enemy is the Devil, not our brothers in Christ who use a different version. They may be confused, but they are not the devil! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most fundamentalists today reject that God could or would preserve His word, perfect for us in our English today, without realizing the weight of that rejection. We have the bible, they say, but it is not in any one version.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't speak for "most fundamentalists" but I know what I believe and why I believe it. I know you know what you believe, but do you know why you believe it? If you do know, will you share that knowledge with the rest of us? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is only ONE truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And truth is determined by carefully weighing the evidence. Can you offer any evidence to support your truth? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>God bless as you seek it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well. I am seeking the truth you say you believe, but so far you have not offered any. I hope that will soon change and you will be a blessing to me as you help fulfill your own desire that we find the truth. Please, tell us why you believe your "truth." Then we can be as blessed as you are.

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dear Alex,

You stated :

&gt;&gt;Beware of the Bible school educated. They can confound the average man with words.&gt;&gt;

I responded
&gt;OH, does that include Dr. Peter Ruckman as well?&gt;

You responded
&gt;Yes&gt;

OK then , I will take your advice and beware of Dr Ruckman because he is able to confound the average man with words.

As to the quest for the perfect Word of God (or in your case the lack thereof) you seem to be saying that when confronted with certain facts that seem to go contrary to one's contention, then pull the "educated apostate" (although you did not use those exact words) boogey man out of the hat to explain the contrary statement without investigating said statement.

Hmmm, What then should we do with the the Apostle Paul and his writings who was educated beyond the vast majority of even our day?

But, then again, if the Word of God never changes how then did it go from Greek and Hebrew to 1611(or is it 1769) English without one Word from Our Father in Heaven concerning this monumental change?
Nay, in fact His Son said it would not happen to a Yod or tittle (Hebrew letters and particles).

And where was the Perfect Word of God before 1611 (or was it 1769)?

I will tell you if you will listen.

The Greek and Hebrew Received Text (TR) has never changed since it came forth from God. Oh yes, there are TR "scribal variants", but what is the difference between the TR "scribal variants" and the multitude of "printer errors", spelling differences and modernizations between the 1611 and 1769 AV editions?

HankD

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
To Psalm 145:3

Beware of the Bible school educated. They can confound the average man with words. God did not require us to be Greek or Hebrew scholars to know, without a doubt, that His Word is 100% reliable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex:

Did the KJV fall down from heaven, bound in leather, or did Anglican scholars translate it from Greek and Hebrew MSS?

 

Chris:

Yes, in a sense. The KJB fell down from heaven. God said he would preserve it for us...and He did!

The pure word was given to Holy men who wrote it in the Greek language. Just like the KJB it was without error.

That Inspired Word was preserved perfect through the TR, the pure word of God almighty, eight previous English versions and is preserved perfect for us today in the KJV. This is the only English Translation in existence today which has it's roots in the Textus Receptus.

ALL of the other English versions on the scene today are derivatives of the older, much corrupted and untrustworthy Codex Siniaticus, Vaticanus. They attack and weaken the basic doctrines of your faith and mine. Check it out...it's true.

So, to answer your question Chris, YES, the KJB is the pure word of God. It has stood the test for 390 years and will live until godly men come up with the next pure word of God which hasn't happened yet.

Thank You for asking.

God Bless

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
That Inspired Word was preserved perfect through the TR, the pure word of God almighty, eight previous English versions and is preserved perfect for us today in the KJV. This is the only English Translation in existence today which has it's roots in the Textus Receptus.

ALL of the other English versions on the scene today are derivatives of the older, much corrupted and untrustworthy Codex Siniaticus, Vaticanus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You keep saying the same thing over and over again no matter how many times you are told it is wrong. You say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That Inspired Word was preserved perfect through the TR, the pure word of God almighty,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But you still have not answered the question, "Which TR?" There are over 30 of them, all different, and NONE of them match the KJV 100%. So, of SOME TR (you still haven't told us which one) is the "perfect word of God" and it does not match the KJV, does that mean the KJV is NOT the "perfect word of God?"

And again you make the same error, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ALL of the other English versions on the scene today are derivatives of the older, much corrupted and untrustworthy Codex Siniaticus, Vaticanus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have already listed some of the modern versions based on the same textform as the KJV, but you still keep making the same error. Did you read my post in which I listed the non-Alexandrian modern English versions?

If you think the Bible is a book of TRUTH why would you try to defend it with an UNTRUTH?

 

Hi Alex,

You can get a Greek and/or Hebrew TR that underlies the KJV from

http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/us/us-frgn.htm

Look for : The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages; The Greek and Hebrew Texts underlying the Authorised Version

Although I don't agree 100 percent with Dr. Peter Ruckman or his methodology of spreading his message, this is the TR that he uses.

What it is, is a selective compilation/collation of the Greek and/or Hebrew manuscripts to precisely match the KJV English.

Lets just say that this TR is an exact duplicate of the originals (INCOMING!!) , then which would be the Word of God that never changes?

The KJV English translation or the TR?

The answer also answers the question "where was the Word of God before 1611"?

In addition and (IMO) It is certainly easier to deal with the "scribal variants" than the 1611-1769KJV English translation "problems".
Of course this TR has already provided the variant selections. Do you trust them is the question?

God bless you in the Way.

HankD

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Alex,

You say you are not particularly educated in the Bible's origins. I am not particularly educated in aeronautical engineering. If I stubbornly defy those who are and build an airplane with square wings, will it fly? Neither does your KJV argument!

If you're going to get on an airplane, I recommend you choose one that was built by someone educated in aeronautical engineering. By all means don't get on my square-winged one! If you are going to be a disciple of God's Word, I recommend you not shun those educated in theology and biblical history, with an attitude of "somehow I know better!"

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

John, though I do agree education is a great thing. This does not always prove so in the Bible. The Natural man can study and pick the verses all apart, as long as he does not have the Holy Spirit to indwell him and lead him, he will not be able to disern scripture correctly. This is the biggest problem with men today, they think that the wisdom of the world is all they need. But God can take a nobody like me and lead me in the paths of righteousness. I'm not coming down on education, but give me a Holy Ghost filled pastor that can't even spell his name in box car letters over a Dr. dodadicker any day.

In the words of an uneducated Holy Ghost filled pastor: "I don't know much, but I sure like what I know."

God bless.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Joey M ]

 

Hank:

Thank you for your input.

I appreciate what you are doing in referring me to the underlying Greek/Hebrew texts but I have enough evidence to know that the KJV 1769 which evolved out of the AV 1611 is so vastly different from all of the other English versions on the scene today that a study will not change my mind that the Word has been preserved. Things that are different cannot be the same. Guess it is just too simple...just like salvation!

I find it very easy to believe that the God who breathed me into existence did what He promised He would do. It is the same faith that I have for my salvation. I really don't need proof. I know in my heart that He saved me. I know in my heart that He has given me a "God's Word" that is 100% reliable and trustworthy in the KJB. I do not have that same assurance with the others because of their origins and the corruptive changes that they have been subjected to over the centuries.

If you email your fax number I have all of the significant differences listed between three versions. There are too many errors and omissions to mention here.

I will be pleased to fax them to you, and anyone else who cares. You can email me, requesting the list and I will send it to you.

Right now I need to spend time with my family who are questioning if I am still alive, also need to go invite an unsaved neighbour to church tomorrow.

Thanks and God Bless as you search for truth.

They are just too numerous to list here.

It is partly by faith that I believe this and on the basis of what I have read and been told. That is essentially all we "commoners" have to work with anyway.