King James Version Only---Why???

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Let's cut to the chase; why should we adhere to the Textus Receptus, and why ought we to regard the KJV as an inspired translation? If you think we should adopt these views, I'd be curious to hear why....

[efta777]

I've always wondered this myself... What is it exactly that makes the KJV better than any other translation. The error as I see it is in thinking that older=closer to the source= better, which is faulty because much improvement has been made in translation.

[$cirisme]

Not to mention the fact that the KJV is not the oldest tranlation in English, and definately not the oldest translation ever! :poke:

It is just that, a translation.

[Bib Lit Major]

Those who hold to the texts behind the KJV being the reason for KJV only, not the translation itself, have a better case, but it seems clear to most of us who are involved with textual research (I am only just beginning and am no expert) that even these texts are inferior in most cases where they differ with the texts more modern translations are based on.

[Hitch]

Thou knowest not why? Then thou shalt never undersand

th

[John Reece]

D. A. Carson settled the matter in my mind with his original edition of The King James Only Debate: An Appeal for Realism.

But I see reviews saying James White's book is even better. Here's a review (by Shane Morgan on Amazon.com) of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? by James R. White:

First of all, to my utter shame, I must admit that several years ago, I myself was an avid KJV Only person. I purchased Gail Riplinger's book: "New Age Translations" and was totally convinced that Satan was the author of a grand conspiracy to undermine and eradicate God's Word from the face of the earth. I meticulously went through the book and highlighted changes, deletions and additions as well as supposed testimonies by those who worked on the NASB and NIV translations. I then gave this book to my associate pastor and then to several of my friends in an emotionally charged attempt to "open their eyes" to the "evils" of the modern translations. I made snide remarks directed toward people who did not carry a KJV as I taught my adult Sunday school class. I told people that the letters "NIV" really should be understood as an acronym for "Non - Inspired - Version." I only wish that my associate pastor had been more straightforward with me about the depth of foolishness into which I had descended. I pray continually that God will forgive him for allowing me to wallow in such abject ignorance and I have asked God to forgive me for participating is such flagrant idolatry. On the other hand I thank God from the very depths of my soul that He has seen fit to liberate me from this ridiculous and baseless tradition. Interestingly, it was not James White's book that set me free; it was God Himself. Allow me explain.
I had long been aware that the original autographs were written in Hebrew and Greek, but I was totally ignorant about the process of textual transmission. Nevertheless, I asked myself the question, why should the KJV be the standard by which all others are judged when it itself is a translation? My conclusion was that this was absolutely illogical and foolish. Shouldn't the KJV be measured against the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which they were taken? After all isn't the goal of any translation to render the original text into another language as accurately as possible? And how do we determine if a particular translation is as accurate as possible? By comparing it to back to the manuscripts from which it was taken! However, I was so staunchly KJV Only, that I pushed this problem to the back of my mind. But God would not allow me forget it altogether. Time and time again, He brought it to my mind and finally, I could push it to the back no longer. I had to deal with it. I was, however, still unwilling to give up my beloved KJV Only position and I tried desperately to find a way around this problem. The only way I could come up with was to say that God had "re-inspired" His Word through the translation process of the KJV of 1611 and therefore that the original manuscripts were no longer necessary. But I realized that this was purely a baseless fabrication that I had created in a desperate attempt to cling to my beloved KJV Only position. However, more and more, God was convincing me of the utter folly of this fabricated ideology until finally I had to admit that I had been wrong. It wasn't until later through other studies that I realized to my utter amazement that I was not the first to come up with this "re-inspiration" excuse to hold on to my KJV Only position. In fact it was already being believed and taught by those in the KJV Only camp!! I immediately recognized it for the fabrication that it was and I even knew why they had invented it: in order to vindicate and justify what only amounts to the flagrant, idolatrous worship of a seventeenth century translation of the Bible.
In closing, let me just say that I am a conservative among conservatives. I hold staunchly to the full plenary-verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and will tolerate nothing less from others who call themselves Christians. The Bible, as it was given by God in the original autographs, is to be the sole authority upon which we base our faith and practice. Any translation of the Bible also carries this same authority, insofar as it represents the original manuscripts. If it is asked: how can we know that we really have the word of God seeing that we do not posses the original autographs? I answer: we have faith in the providence of God. Through faithful men on fire with zeal for the preservation of the Scriptures, God has ensured that His Word has been preserved. I fully recognize that there are some translations out there that are far from representing the original manuscripts and I do not recognize them as authoritative. But I give full sanction to those translations that seek to reproduce a word for word rendering of the Hebrew and Greek into English (i.e. the NASB, NKJV, KJV and on a lower level, the NIV). Notice that I included the KJV in my list of authoritative translations. That is because, like James White, I am not against the KJV. I like it and I use it. I am, however, against the foolish and divisive idolatry of KJV Onlyism. To those who have not yet encountered the KJV Only position, BE CAREFUL!! This idolatry has a false piety that is very romantic and captivating. I wholeheartedly urge you to read this book because it clearly presents the facts of the issue while at the same time exposing to what desperate lengths KJV Only people will go in order to hold on to their idolatrous KJV Only position, even to the point of employing hate speech and mean-spirited invective against other Christians. I pray that all Christians will read this book. It will prevent many poor souls from being sucked into this cultish idolatry; and it will liberate others from the prison they do not even know they are locked up in.

[Hitch]

LOL Say that again , really fast John...

My intro to the KJV only biz came at my first net posting place. I didnt have any electronic Scriptures so rather than display my poor typing skills manually reproducing every text I just posted references. (sample Jn6;39) When the KJV gistapo learned that I used NASB Amp and KJV he said he could hear the 'hiss of the serpent' in my posts. Even though no text appeared.

Take care

Hitch

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

So---there are no adherents of these ideas here?

[Jaltus]

There are a few. Come on over to the Mark 16:9-20 thread.

[Solly]

From Solly, KJV user, but not onlyist:

efta777: I've always wondered this myself... What is it exactly that makes the KJV better than any other translation. The error as I see it is in thinking that older=closer to the source= better, which is faulty because much improvement has been made in translation.

Actually, this is the argument from those who favour the modern translations based on the modern critical texts: the old is better, we have older text copies, and a better understanding of their provenance, therefore, they ARE better witnesses on the whole; although I don't suppose many would want a Bible based on D.

BLM: Those who hold to the texts behind the KJV being the reason for KJV only, not the translation itself, have a better case, but it seems clear to most of us who are involved with textual research (I am only just beginning and am no expert) that even these texts are inferior in most cases where they differ with the texts more modern translations are based on.

I support the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society; they and others believe there is a case for the MT/TT based not merely on the value of the texts themselves, but the doctrine of the Providence of God: he preserves his word. Modern critics and translators cannot agree 100% on a text, which is something the Muslims make a great deal of. Those who hold to the MT/TT believe there is something fundamentally unreliable about the modern academic critical theory, esp where it is fostered by nonEvangelicals, and even nonChristians. Simple question: is the Bible just another historical text? I know what your answer will be, but others see it differently, I'm sure you can understand that.

However, as to the matter itself, just think about it, instead of coming from an academic pov. We have had the AV since 1611. It supplanted the Geneva due to King James' efforts and in time became the standard Bible used throughout the English speaking world, not merely for preaching and Bible study, but as a base of English literature for poets, writers etc. Though text critical studies had been going on for a while, in time a new translation is brought in (1881) on the basis of a new greek text by people whose Christian credentials are very much in doubt: Westcott and Hort. At the same time liberalism is poo poo-ing the Bible as such; W&H are tainted with those new liberal ideas. What do you think the reaction would be?
I only wish there had been a revision committee, rather than the simple tinkering with spelling and punctuation of 1769.

Equally, try going to a Muslim and saying, here is a better text of the Koran, critically examined and restructured by academics who don't actually believe what the Koran says. What do you think they will say?
As the church has been forced to retreat over the last century, so it has held on to things that become of prime importance for its identity; cognitive dissonance and all that. Yes there is a theory supporting KJV based on the texts, and I generally support that - for instance, Jaltus was never able to tell me why Cyprian (?) quoted 1 John 5.7,8 as being Scripture, just that we have no early text with it.

ps, I now use the AV and the ESV in my studies, along with the MT/TR "originals"
Nor do I accept the idea that the translation is somehow inspired (shades of LXX!!)

[Jaltus]

Cyprian did not quote it as being scripture, he just quoted it. His introductory statement, after quoting other scripture saying it is from the Lord, says "it is written..."

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Solly and Jaltus---two of my favorite contributors to T-Web....
:cheers:

But why don't the KJV Only proponents come forward---if any there be?

[Jaltus]

My guess, they know there is no reason for holding to KJVO and do not want to be outed.

Neither of them will talk about I John 5:6-8 with me, at least not so far.

[Socrates]

05-26-2003 @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107652#post107652)
Hitch:


Deare Hytche,

Thou churle, thou fellowe of baseste imagynings, vaunted hyghe pon thine owne flyghtes of human fancye, forsooth, desist, nay halte forthwithe thy much protestations 'pon the efficacie of this translatyone. Knowest thou not that Paule the Oppostle usedeth this KJV that thou in thine direst turgid harte dost derride. This booke, this realm, this sceptered tablet this noble thing loved by scrybe, nerde, and recitiviste. Curbe thy tungue or fayce dire perryl whenst thyne forked sword be raggyt thy throate and burriyty foure armes lengthes from the tide on yon goldeyne beach. Be warned thou treadst 'pon toes made sore annoyed by the acide of human tradityone.

Sir Socratyse, Earle of yon Southe Lande

[Socrates]

"For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid" Mark 9.6

flither glither thou fecrete ferpente
doume and gloum thou betrayest here
take thee hence thou vilest beastie
bother not His fervyntes here

pore 'pon oolde Jamie's version
to thy fhriveled harts contente
but leave me with my moderne version
finner tho I furely be
for I will to my advantage need no dictionarie

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Socrates, I must say I am impressed! EETS, anyone?

And Jaltus, I hear ya....

[Bib Lit Major]

Solly,

I understand the objections, but in my own study, it doesn't seem that the texts behind the KJV are reliable. As far as the Providence of God..who's to say that the texts that the NIV utilized aren't really God's preserved Word? :shrug:

[Solly]

Today @ 08:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111218#post111218)
Bib Lit Major:

Solly,

I understand the objections, but in my own study, it doesn't seem that the texts behind the KJV are reliable. As far as the Providence of God..who's to say that the texts that the NIV utilized aren't really God's preserved Word? :shrug:

Simple; why keep them hidden so long (I speak as a man)? The TR followers look to their preservation in the Byzantine tradition, and open use by said communion, as opposed to dusty old copies lurking in libraries, toilets and waste baskets, and possibly connected with the major heresies of their day.

[John Reece]

Socrates,

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Jaltus]

Why the TR over the MT then, Solly?

I mean, speaking of minor manuscripts...

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 06:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111227#post111227)
Solly:

Simple; why keep them hidden so long (I speak as a man)? The TR followers look to their preservation in the Byzantine tradition, and open use by said communion, as opposed to dusty old copies lurking in libraries, toilets and waste baskets, and possibly connected with the major heresies of their day.

There are several misapprehensions here. What heresies were the Alexandrian papryi associated with? I've pointed out that one could make a case that the eclectic text is MORE orthodox than the Byzantine texts -- see "Corruptions" in the TR/KJV:brow: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19899#post19899)

Who says that God has to preserve things the way KJVOs claim? Why not preserve very ancient papyri in stuffed crocodiles and the arid sands of Egypt, out of the reach of possible corrupters? And the Codex Sinaiticus (א, Aleph)) was presented, wrapped in a red cloth, to Constantin von Tischendorff by the monks of the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai in about 1859.

The widespread copying of the Byzantine MSS is easily explained by the fact that Byzantium/Constantinople became the only major place in Christendom where Greek became spoken, so naturally their manuscripts eventually became the majority after about the 9th century. Also, the power of Constantine himself would explain why there was more standardization of the manuscripts, which is why they show evidence of harmonization and expansion of piety.

[Steven Avery]

05-28-2003 @ 11:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109966#post109966)
Jaltus:

There are a few. Come on over to the Mark 16:9-20 thread.

Well I am a King James Bible proponent, and posted a bit on that thread. However, Waterrock, who is not one at all, was "accused' of same by Jaltus
.
Interesting .. shows the mentality of those who despise the KJB view. And then they ask for dialog ?

I have a full plate on other things right now, Messianic prophecy, website, dealing with the errantists about Aqaba/Sinai, but will comment briefly.

Jaltus wonders why we don't get more involved in the threads, like this one. I suggest you do read, carefully, the Mark 16:9-20 thread. When the anti-Mark ending views are so illogical, one has to spend hours disassembling them. Fortunately, Waterrock did so anyway. Please read the thread, or at least skim it. A whole section of your "Bible" can be <chomped> out based on such irrationalities. Do you care ?

I suggest as an example of twisting by a supposed scholar, on a more official level, look at the web page of Daniel Wallace on the Johanine Comma and Cyprian, and the response by Martin Shue. Similarly, Bruce Metzgar actually had to retract his version of the Erasmus story. (check the 3rd edition of his book). James White doesn't seem to have noticed, and keeps a bogus version posted.

As to the issue as a whole, there is a brainwashing going on in the seminaries and colleges to embrace the Westcott-Hort paradigms of textual criticism, paradigms that are illogical and against the Scriptural ideas of Preservation and Inerrancy, and were actually developed with the precise intent of displacing the Christian acceptance of the TR and the KJB. (yes, they were developed *after* W-H had spoken of the need to get rid of that "vile' TR.)

Nobody in modern textcrit-fantasy-land cares a whit that Sinaticus is simply a piece of junk from a scribal basis (compare to the Masoretic, or the great majority of Byzantine Texts) it became one of two manuscripts used in a proof-text fashion by W-H over the multi-hundreds of historic Byzantine.

Consider the full implications of the diffficult idea that the "hardest" reading is the oldest. (The hardest can simply be the errant reading). Look carefully at the various ideas about additions and omissions from the text. Don't simply swallow the "party line" if it makes no sense.

Do KJB folks sometimes explain their position poorly? Definitely. Is there an element that is unscholarly (Riplinger)? Definitely. Is there an element that tends to harsh discourse (Ruckman) ? Definitely.

Are the ideas, either that the TR is the superior base underlying text, or that the King James Bible are actually the Scriptures, the inerrant Word of God, worthy of sincere study. 100% Absolutely Definitely.

Shalom,
Praxeus
www.messiahresearch.com

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114323#post114323)
praxeus:

I suggest as an example of twisting by a supposed scholar, on a more official level, look at the web page of Daniel Wallace on the Johanine Comma and Cyprian, and the response by Martin Shue. Similarly, Bruce Metzgar actually had to retract his version of the Erasmus story. (check the 3rd edition of his book). James White doesn't seem to have noticed, and keeps a bogus version posted.

Are you saying that Metzger now accepts the Johannine Comma as original? Most unlikely. And he has also been the object of disgraceful slander by KJVOs. E.g. Metzger was one of the interviewees in Lee Strobel’s book The Case for Christ makes it very clear that the evidence for the NT’s reliability vastly exceeds that for any other ancient document, and that the Canon was not conferred by any church but recognized by it. Metzger also affirmed belief in the Trinity, which he pointed out was unambiguously taught by the NT so the JWs were totally wrong. Earlier, Metzger wrote about the JW perversion of John 1:1 (“the Word was a god”) in “The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ”, Theology Today, April 1953, p. 75:


“It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists... As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation.”

Praxeus continues:


As to the issue as a whole, there is a brainwashing going on in the seminaries and colleges to embrace the Westcott-Hort paradigms of textual criticism, paradigms that are illogical and against the Scriptural ideas of Preservation and Inerrancy, and were actually developed with the precise intent of displacing the Christian acceptance of the TR and the KJB. (yes, they were developed *after* W-H had spoken of the need to get rid of that &quot;vile' TR.)

Jaltus has already demonstrated that this is a misrepresentation of the NU/UBS textual criticism, which is far from being an uncritical acceptance of W-H.


Do KJB folks sometimes explain their position poorly? Definitely. Is there an element that is unscholarly (Riplinger)? Definitely. Is there an element that tends to harsh discourse (Ruckman) ? Definitely.

:dufus: Ruckman believes that the KJV was reinspired so supersedes the original Greek and Hebrew. Must include the Apocrypha which was part of the REAL KJV-1611, and part of the recommended Scriptural reading list. In fact, it's clear that the KJV translators were NOT KJVOs:


Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

They were also "guilty" of many of the "crimes" for which KJVOs vilify modern translators -- see The REAL 1611 King James Version (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/).


Are the ideas, either that the TR is the superior base underlying text,

No, the TR is demonstrably corrupt and heretical as shown in my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19899#post19899 :brow: (by the same "reasoning" as many KJVOs use). Care to address this? Would ANY TR/KJV advocate care to address this :huh:?


... or that the King James Bible are actually the Scriptures, the inerrant Word of God, worthy of sincere study. 100% Absolutely Definitely.


Assertion is not the same as proof. The KJV is just a TRANSLATION, and imputing inspiration to its translators is a heretical denial of the closure of the Canon after the last Apostle died.

[Ric]

05-25-2003 @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107483#post107483)
pereynol:

Let's cut to the chase; why should we adhere to the Textus Receptus, and why ought we to regard the KJV as an inspired translation? If you think we should adopt these views, I'd be curious to hear why....

I can't understand why some people are closed minded! :help:

[Steven Avery]

Socrates:
Are you saying that Metzger now accepts the Johannine Comma as original?

Praxeus,
My Metzger statement was pretty clear, he had distorted the evidence, in a story that is frequently repeated to this day. He did have the integrity to retact the error in the third edition. As to his supposed orthodoxy, or support by Lee Strobol, or the power of the "weak inerrancy' stance, or other's claimed slanders against him, how many different side issues did you want to raise ?

Socrates
Assertion is not the same as proof. The KJV is just a TRANSLATION, and imputing inspiration to its translators is a heretical denial of the closure of the Canon after the last Apostle died.

Praxeus
You have a belief that every translation MUST be errant. And that inerrancy could only take place in Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek. Or perhaps in Latin, if Hoskier was right about Mark . Folks can now go to the Islamists and skeptics and say "Look, my Bible has errors.. it has to.. Socrates told me so Stop bothering me."

As to W-H and UBS/NA the differences are way overstated. The basic postulates of Westcott-Hort are still followed (Professor Maurice Robinson, I believe, did a good summary of them) and were devloped long after the rejection of TR/KJB. Basically in W-H, Vaticanus and secondarily Sinaticus were proof-texts, with readings from both of them bypassed only if they were virtually patently absurd. In Nestle Aland they were simply by far the most important evidence, and variant readings from the two of them would be a small minority. Big difference. Two corrupt texts rule your roost, over hundreds from the historic Scriptures.

The scribal corruption, especially, in Sinaticus, should deep-six this whole idea to truly critical thinkers with a Scriptural perspective..

(Even before going into other issues like their oddball discordant texts, and doctrinal and internal consistency issues, and Preservation)

Of course in modern liberal textcrit doctrine, errors can show the original, because they are "harder readings" than an inerrant text.

There are a few email forums that discuss these issues coherently. My time is quite taken these days, and I have to chose who is sincere in dialog, and which issues to what groups.

Anybody who wonders about my view on this should simply read the last verses of Mark thread.

Feel free to email me for email forum references.

Praxeus
schmuel@bigfoot.com
www.messiahresearch.com

[Ted]

A couple of items seem to have missed comment so far.

First:
Which Textus Receptus? There are four different editions.

Second:
Which KJV? There are five if memory serves.

It would seem that the argument is meaningless unless these terms are identified in a non-ambiguous manner.

[Steven Avery]

Yesterday @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116602#post116602)
Ted:

A couple of items seem to have missed comment so far.

First:
Which Textus Receptus? There are four different editions.

Second:
Which KJV? There are five if memory serves.

It would seem that the argument is meaningless unless these terms are identified in a non-ambiguous manner.

Hi Ted,
From a KJB view, "which TR" is more a historical note. The translators I gather used Beza which updated Stephanus and Erasmus. A KJB view is not a "TR inerrancy" view.

Compared to the situations even within two editions of the NIV ..
or beteen the various MV's, all KJB differences are very minor (of course the NKJV is a differnent bird).

No KJB have significant difference from others, the mass of differences are spelling, punctuation, changes as to what is in italics, footnotes out, stuff like that. Of course proofreading, fixing errors ,occurred. There are a few plurals/singulars that changed in editions, maybe you can find a couple of other items in contention by scouring the web sites.

Many KJB folks would take the late 18th century Cambridge Edition as the exemplar...

The MV person feels that if there is a word in the KJB with a single/plural question over editions, that justifies their denying the KJB as Scriptures and running to the mishagosh of alexandrian texts, where whole verses and sections are simply removed/inserted/removed depending ton the hair day of the translators.

Brent Riggs in Poland did a real interesting article on one of those smaller questions, from Ruth, where some editions had "he" and some "she".. quite fascinating.

Shalom,
Schmuel

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Praxeus,
Why do you think the KJV is an inspired translation? Are there any other English translations that are just as valid, in your opinion? What if someone were to render a new translation that was faithful to the MT, or perhaps the TR in a more contemporary idiom? Would that be bad?

[Socrates]

06-04-2003 @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=116963#post116963)
praxeus:

Compared to the situations even within two editions of the NIV ..
or beteen the various MV's, all KJB differences are very minor (of course the NKJV is a differnent bird).

I beg to differ -- have you seen the REAL 1611 King James Version (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/)? Most professing KJV-1611 defenders wouldn't know one if they tripped over it.

[Waterrock]

Dear Socrates,

During Jaltus' absence from the Mark 16:9-20, I have a few moments to spare in this thread. I wish to focus on the doctrinal background of some prominent compilers of the Critical Text -- the UBS Editorial Committee.

Soc: "Are you saying that Metzger now accepts the Johannine Comma as original?"

What Praxeus meant, I believe, is that Dr. Metzger presented, as historical facts, the story that Erasmus, after publishing the Greek NT without the Johannine Comma, promised to include it if a single Greek MS could be found which contained it, and when one such MS was found, he proceeded to keep his promise, but indicated "in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him." (See this quote, and Metzger's whole presentation, in "Text of the New Testament," p. 101.)

Metzger's admission that the story is a fabrication may be found in the same book, in a footnote in the appendix, p. 291. Metzger states that "this frequently made assertion" "needs to be corrected" in light of research by H.J. de Jonge. (Metzger himself may have gotten the story from Ezra Abbot, and never bothered to double-check its veracity.)

Soc: "The TR is demonstrably corrupt and heretical as shown in my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthrea...19899#post19899 (by the same "reasoning" as many KJVOs use). Care to address this? Would ANY TR/KJV advocate care to address this ?"

Look, we both know that you were simply using an arsenal of flawed approaches to show that they were flawed ... right? If you were seriously trying to show that the KJV is less conducive to the propagation of conservative, Biblical doctrine than, say, the NRSV, I would be willing to engage your position. (Even though I'm not a TR/KJVO advocate).

Now about those doctrinal weaknesses of the UBS Editorial Committee. Here are a few observations about parts of the "Textual Commentary" by Dr. Metzger. Keep in mind that he was writing with the goal of reflecting the reasons why the Committee made their text-critical decisions.

Matthew 27:49 ~ The non-inclusion of the Greek equivalent for a phrase from John 19:34 -- /before/ Christ's death -- is adopted, but as a "B" reading!

Mark 6:22 ~ "autou" is adopted, which is why the NRSV is nonsense here (it says that Herod's daughter Herodias came in and danced!). Metzger states that "autou" was adopted "despite the historical and contextual difficulties." Allow me to re-phrase: the adopted reading makes Mark's statement contradict the actual historical facts -- inasmuch as Herodias was not Herod's daughter -- and the adopted reading makes this verse contradict Mark 6:17 (where Herodias is plainly not Herod's daughter), but the UBS Committee still regarded it as the original text.

Mark 16:9-20 ~ The footnote on p. 126 is interesting: Metzger states that the most probable explanation why Mark ends at 16:8 is that "the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was transcribed."

Luke 24:40 ~ I just cite this as an example of an important "Western Non-Interpolation." The verse is included, but it is rated "D," indicating that the Committee was deeply divided about this decision (and Luke 24:51). We're talking about some significant material here.

John 7:39 ~ An "A" reading? See the NRSV. 'Nuff said.

Acts 12:25 ~ Metzger seems to agree with a quotation from Hort which he cites on p. 398: ""eis Ierousalhm", which is best attested and was not likely to be introduced, cannot possibly be right if it is taken with "hupestrepsan." Their conclusion is that the passage contains a primitive error that has affected all extant witnesses, and they propose that the sequence of words be amended..." Yet "eis Ierousalhm" is adopted, as a "D" reading, yielding, it would seem, the sense that Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem (although in 11:30, they were already at Jerusalem). Now I daresay that there is a way in which this reading can be tilted so as not to cast a shadow on inerrancy. But I am not so sure that the UBS Committee had that tilt in mind. (Btw, the NASB, NIV, and RSV apparently reject "eis".)

Acts 16:12 ~ Metzger mentions that "a majority of the Committee preferred to adopt the conjecture..." Metzger and K. Aland voice their dissent in a special note.

Romans 9:5 ~ Consider carefully the following comments offered by Metzger on p. 522: "...nowhere else in his genuine epistles* does Paul ever designate "ho Christos" as "Theos." [Words in quotation marks given by Metzger in Greek.] In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him God blessed forever."

On the same page, there's a footnote, linked to the point where the asterisk appears in the above quote. The footnote says: "Tit 2.13 is generally regarded as deutero-Pauline." (Another footnote balances the last sentence in the quote; here we may be seeing Metzger's less liberal view being expressed.) In other words, I think it's safe to say that the majority of the scholars who compiled the UBS text (and possibly all of them) regarded Titus as non-Pauline.

When discussing variants at Second Peter 1:3 and 2:4, Metzger refers to "the author of 2 Peter" and states, "If, as is generally supposed, 2 Peter depends in part upon Jude, the author of the former appears to have substituted...." Surely the choice of words indicates that the Committee-members do not believe that Peter wrote Second Peter.

So, if anyone is aspiring to make a case that traditional views about inerrancy are prevalent among the modern-day compilers of the Critical Text, I'd say, stop kidding yourself.

Another factor to consider is, in the NA-27 apparatus, all those crosses. Each one (over 750) indicates a point where the NA-27 is different from the NA-25. The NA-27's introduction explicitly states that it is not a "definitive" text; it's a work in progress -- one that has been in progress for over a century. Will the next edition have a new batch of 750+ changes? Will there be even more? Who knows? Meanwhile, advocates of the KJV, or the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine Priority can rest assured that /their/ text-base is not going to significantly change. [Which still doesn't make their position correct, but I think this fluctuation is something that should be considered when one is wondering what sort of milk to recommend and supply for the flock.]

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[PRAISE]

05-29-2003 @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111153#post111153)
Socrates:



Deare Hytche,

Thou churle, thou fellowe of baseste imagynings, vaunted hyghe pon thine owne flyghtes of human fancye, forsooth, desist, nay halte forthwithe thy much protestations 'pon the efficacie of this translatyone. Knowest thou not that Paule the Oppostle usedeth this KJV that thou in thine direst turgid harte dost derride. This booke, this realm, this sceptered tablet this noble thing loved by scrybe, nerde, and recitiviste. Curbe thy tungue or fayce dire perryl whenst thyne forked sword be raggyt thy throate and burriyty foure armes lengthes from the tide on yon goldeyne beach. Be warned thou treadst 'pon toes made sore annoyed by the acide of human tradityone.

Sir Socratyse, Earle of yon Southe Lande

Hey, Socraties: I'm *ROTFLMBO* at this!:rofl: This reminds me so much of another thread on a different website called BADD SPELERS ANONIMUS! Maybe I should start a thread like that here! :smile: Anyway-I still have to hold true to the promise in Isaiah 55:11, where it says that wherever the word of the Lord goes out, it shall accomplish that for which it was sent, & IT SHALL NOT RETURN VOID! I believe that no translation is perfect, & that Bibles like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, are all perfectly acceptable.
What truley matters is that the MESSAGE of the Bible-Salvation through Jesus Christ, & Him alone, is what is the real issue here! If the other translations teach the same thing-that is what really matters! We, as Believers, have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside of each one of us, & as such, can rely on HIM to interpret scriptures correctly! I know for myself, that the NIV works fine for me, although for those ministerial courses that I am going to be taking, it has been recommended by my pastor, that the NASB be the preferred version to use for these courses. Almost ANY believer has at least 2 or more different translations of the Bible , & they all are equally good, IF we let the Holy Spirit lead us in interpreting Scripture, instead of US doing it!

PRAISE:thumb:

[EdJones]

Seculiar humanism at its best right here folks.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Yesterday @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124014#post124014)
EdJones:

Seculiar humanism at its best right here folks.

Ed,
I don't understand your remark or the cartoon you posted. What do you see as being "secular humanism" here? What does it have to do with the NIV? And finally, do you believe the KJV is an inspired translation? If so---why?

[joelkaki]

Solly:

Simple; why keep them hidden so long (I speak as a man)?

Solly, it seems to me that such an argument is void. Certainly much time has passed since the institution of the KJV, but there was also much time before the KJV. Why don't you uphold Wycliffe's translation as the real one, or the Geneva, or some other?


Joel

[Socrates]

06-15-2003 @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123207#post123207)
Waterrock:

What Praxeus meant, I believe, is that Dr. Metzger presented, as historical facts, the story that Erasmus, after publishing the Greek NT without the Johannine Comma, promised to include it if a single Greek MS could be found which contained it, and when one such MS was found, he proceeded to keep his promise, but indicated &quot;in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.&quot; (See this quote, and Metzger's whole presentation, in &quot;Text of the New Testament,&quot; p. 101.)

Metzger's admission that the story is a fabrication may be found in the same book, in a footnote in the appendix, p. 291. Metzger states that &quot;this frequently made assertion&quot; &quot;needs to be corrected&quot; in light of research by H.J. de Jonge. (Metzger himself may have gotten the story from Ezra Abbot, and never bothered to double-check its veracity.)

This happens with stories like that. It's much like the stories of Nazis making lampshades out of Jewish skin, which seem to be so well known but are fabrications. but this does not invalidate the Holocaust in the slightest. Likewis, I see no reason why any error by Dr Metzger (a staunch Trinitarian and opponent of the Jesus Seminar loonies) about the story of the Comma does anything to support its authenticity as part of the original.



Soc: &quot;The TR is demonstrably corrupt and heretical as shown in my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthrea...19899#post19899 (by the same &quot;reasoning&quot; as many KJVOs use). Care to address this? Would ANY TR/KJV advocate care to address this ?&quot;

Look, we both know that you were simply using an arsenal of flawed approaches to show that they were flawed ... right? If you were seriously trying to show that the KJV is less conducive to the propagation of conservative, Biblical doctrine than, say, the NRSV, I would be willing to engage your position. (Even though I'm not a TR/KJVO advocate).

I was showing that many of the KJVO arguments rebound. Further, that list shows many places where most modern translations are superior to the KJV/TR. Does anyone want to answer that? :huh:

And I don't know why you suggest the NRSV which people like Gray Pilgrim, Jaltus and me are on record here as despising as a dreadful translation. Why not mention the NIV or NASB, or the new ESV? My own experiences leading a theology study group show that one can derive all doctrines of Christianity from these translations.

[Socrates]

This is one of the examples discussed by James White in his excellent book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?

Mark 1:2-4 says:


"2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" — 3 "a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’" 4 And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."

However, the first quotation (v. 2) comes from Malachi 3:1, and only the second quotation is from Isaiah 40:3. Some typically context-impaired bibliosceptics claim this is an error. But there is no error in following the citation conventions of the day rather than 21st-century practices. The Jews often kept all the Prophets on a single scroll, and so would often cite the most prominent of the prophets (see how J.P. Holding rebuts a typical village atheist and explains typical Jewish citation methods www.tektonics.org/mkone2.html). Later gentile scribes failed to realise this, and "corrected" the text to "As it is written in the prophets".

It is just implausible that if "the prophets" was original, any Scribe would change it to "Isaiah the prophet, which seems merely to created a problem. But it makes perfect sense that a later Byzantine scribe would try to smooth out what he thought was an error in the copy he had.

Another example is in Matthew 27:9-10:


"9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me."

Here, most of this was from Zechariah 11:12-13, and only a small allusion to Jeremiah 18:1-4 and 19:1-3, and the field mentioned in Jeremiah 32:6-9. Yet once again, only the name of the more prominent prophet was cited. And once more, some scribes tried to "correct" this. The only difference is that far fewer manuscripts have this "correction" than the previous one, so the "correction" didn't make it into the TR and thus the KJV.

[Waterrock]

Socrates,

SOC: "...I see no reason why any error by Dr Metzger ... about the story of the Comma does anything to support its authenticity as part of the original."

Nor do I, but I *do* see this as a reason to refuse to take Critical-Text advocates' assertions regarding the history of the text at face value.

SOC: "... that list shows many places where most modern translations are superior to the KJV/TR. Does anyone want to answer that?"

If that's all you meant (instead of something to the effect that the KJV is heretical), then no, since I agree that in numerous passages modern translations are better than the KJV.

SOC: "And I don't know why you suggest the NRSV which people like Gray Pilgrim, Jaltus and me are on record here as despising as a dreadful translation."

Let me show you why. You've seemed to have gone out of your way to depict Dr. Metzger as a non-liberal, Bible-believing kind of guy. If you have a NRSV Bible handy, please turn to the Preface, entitled "To the Reader." What name is at the end? Bruce M. Metzger. He chaired the translation-committee that produced the NRSV. Istm that your position is akin to that of a farmer who cherishes a tree but abhores its fruit.

Another reason why I mentioned the NRSV instead of the NIV or NASB is because the NRSV is based more closely on the NA-27/UBS-4 Greek texts. The translators of the NIV intentionally /rejected/ the NA-27 text here and there. So, yes indeed, it is easier to teach correct doctrine in the NIV at, say, John 7:39, and it is easier to avoid admitting a Biblical error in Mark 6:22 in the NIV, too, but this is no thanks to the NA-27 text.

Yours in Christ,
Waterrock

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126325#post126325)
Waterrock, replying to:


SOC: ... that list shows many places where most modern translations are superior to the KJV/TR. Does anyone want to answer that?

If that's all you meant (instead of something to the effect that the KJV is heretical), then no, since I agree that in numerous passages modern translations are better than the KJV.

And my thread also showed that in a number of places, the underlying text is better too.



SOC: And I don't know why you suggest the NRSV which people like Gray Pilgrim, Jaltus and me are on record here as despising as a dreadful translation.

Let me show you why. You've seemed to have gone out of your way to depict Dr. Metzger as a non-liberal, Bible-believing kind of guy. If you have a NRSV Bible handy, please turn to the Preface, entitled &quot;To the Reader.&quot; What name is at the end? Bruce M. Metzger. He chaired the translation-committee that produced the NRSV. Istm that your position is akin to that of a farmer who cherishes a tree but abhores its fruit.

That is definitely a black mark against Metzger. His interview in Strobel's book is definitely a white mark though.

However, the main problems with the NRSV are not textual differences but translational differences where the text is the same.

[bar Jonah]

I really believe most of the posts in this thread are off topic. This thread wasn't created to discuss why the KJV is better than other translations. The point was to ask why some people think the KJV is the only acceptable version.

The issue isn't people who prefer KJV. The issue is KJOs who hold up the work of men as being equal to the work of God. (And Socrates, thank you for that outstanding link! I just learned a lot more about the issue in a matter of moments! :thumb:

My GODISNOWHERE teammate, Dwayne, likes to distill a debate into its most crucial or critical issue. For example, when confronted with a proponent of evolution, he's no longer even willing to discuss carbon dating, fossils, missing links, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, geological strata in relation to the Flood, etc. etc. No, if you can't show even a workable theory for abiogenesis... he won't even debate with you. And he has yet to meet one person who does. If you can't explain life from inanimate matter, mind from mindlessness, then all the theories from the first cell to today (from goo to you) are irrelevant.

In the KJO issue, I sought the same kind of thing, and I found it.

There is no one named James in the Bible. And I'm saying that as someone named James, who was supposedly given a biblical name. :lol:

The critical issue of KJO for me is this -- the 1611 translators willfully lied, for political reasons, more or less. To appease a king ... a king named James. They changed the names of two apostles and a book of the Bible.

My messianic friend, Jeff, met and married his wife in the Netherlands. During their courtship one day, he happened to mention something from the book of "James."

She said, "The book of what???" He said James. She said, "There's no book of 'James.' What are you talking about? ... Ohhhhhhh, you mean the book of Yakov?"

Yakov. Everywhere else in the Bible, Yakov is Jacob. But for these two apostles and this NT letter... it's suddenly translated into a European name that didn't even exist 2,000 years ago.

Not only is James not an English translation of Yakov, but the two names don't even have the same meaning. Yakov = "the deceiver." James = "usurper." These two names have absolutely no etymological relationship, whatsoever.

"Jesus" is a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration. Fine. Heck, we don't refer to the man who "discovered" N. America as Christophero Columbo, do we? Yes, we translate names.

But James isn't English for Jacob. Jacob is English for Yakov.

Sure, I can argue about unicorns and fetching compases all the live long day. But the bottom line is -- the translators lied. Intentionally, knowingly.

Now, as for the quality of the translation, hey, I think the KJV is good. Is the "James issue" important in regards to the translational quality of the KJV? Frankly, I don't care about it. I like the KJV. It's a good, decent translation, and I have no problem with it.

What I have a problem with is people who claim it is perfect. Flawless. Without error. I find that position categorically indefensible, for exactly the reasons I gave above. There is nothing to debate -- the KJV lies. Sure, about something not that important. But if it lies, it lies. And claiming it is perfect is nothing less than a form of idol worship.


(I actually had one KJO tell me that he prefers to read the Bible "in the original English." I'm not exaggerating. He'd made an argument from scripture that hinged on punctuation, and I had pointed out that the semi-colons and such did not exist, originally. He said, "Sure they did. They were there." I said, "Uh, they didn't have that punctuation in Greek." He said, "Oh, I know. They didn't write it.... but it was there! It was just written down later, in 1611."

Reading the Bible in the original English. That's what being a KJO is all about.) :lol:

[EdJones]

Do modern Bibles really obscure the Deity of Christ?

[Reasonable]

The Englsh language is one of hundreds of languages and not even the one most commonly spoken. What translation do KJO's feel the other 5,750,000,000 people on earth should be reading? What were English speaking people supposed to read before 1611? And does each language have it's own "inspired" translation? Is it okay to modernize the KJ and get rid of the "thy, thou, ye, etc" or does God still desire us to speak old English? To me is seems many KJO's live in a small world, clueless to the rest of humanity.

[The Curtmudgeon]

07-28-2003 @ 07:58 PM RightIdea:
But James isn't English for Jacob. Jacob is English for Yakov.


Wrong idea, RightIdea. Or can you please explain if the translation James for Yacov is the fault of the AV/KJV translators, why was 'Jacobus' always used by even earlier Scottish kings as the Latin equivalent of 'James'? All official documents that were issued in Latin (not saying that every document was in Latin, just saying that in every document which was in Latin, or in which the royal 'signature' was in Latin) issued by Scottish Stewart kings from James I on used 'Jacobus' as the Latin equivalent of 'James'. Since James I was the g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfather (I think I counted those g's correctly!) of the AV/KJV King James (I of England, but VI of Scotland), it's rather a push to say that the equivalency of the names was a political move to appease the latter Jamie.

I can understand your opinion of the AV, but you should not stoop to using Urban Legends to try to support your position.

Also, your "point" about Jacob, not James, being the English translation of Yakov ignores another fact: there is not always just one English equivalent for a foreign word or name. Do you deny that Charles and Carl, f'rinstance, are both good English names? Yet the fact that the German name for the French king Charlemagne is Karl der grosse shows that Carl/Karl is considered to be identical to Charles; likewise all the Latin references to the two English King Charles's are to Carolus Rex just as the multiple James's are Jacobus Rex (and so Carroll O'Conner, f'rinstance, has the "same" first name as Chuck Conners). So there is no problem with having Jacob = Yakov and James = Yakov at the same time.

The (in the case of the Stewarts/Stuarts, "a weed by any other name...") Curtmudgeon

[themuzicman]

Hey, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul, it's good enough for me! :teeth: :doh: :lmbo:

[Solly]

While I use KJV at church, I am not KJO, but I have to say that the "James" case is a pretty week argument, and hardly the nub of the issue. The translators - before KJV too - used transliteration, and where available, traditional renderings. Everybody knew that James = Jacob, it's called dynamic equivelance :lol:, just as dinarus was translated penny (the KJV translators weren't as literal as some think).

The only real aruguent against the KJV is not its language - we don't update Shakespeare after all - but its underlying texts, particularly the greek NT. Unfortunately, the KJOs like true fanatics, have redoubled their efforts while forgetting their goals.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218305#post218305)
Solly:

The only real aruguent against the KJV is not its language - we don't update Shakespeare after all - but its underlying texts, particularly the greek NT. Unfortunately, the KJOs like true fanatics, have redoubled their efforts while forgetting their goals.

I think the language thing is a big argument against the KJ because some words have actually changed meaning in modern English. I don't mean the KJ is wrong because it uses Old English, What I am saying is that if it gives incorrect conclussions or not as clear an understanding to the modern reader because of its language, then that is a strike against it. Not that it was translated wrong, it is simply out-dated and gives the reader the wrong understanding in some instances.

[Pilgrim]

Not to get picky but the KJV does not use "Old English" you want "Old English" read Beowulf in original.

[Reasonable]

Today @ 08:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218542#post218542)
Pilgrim:

Not to get picky but the KJV does not use &quot;Old English&quot; you want &quot;Old English&quot; read Beowulf in original.

I'm just using the terminology that most websites on this discussion use. Most seem to call it "Old English." Is there a particular time element that the term "Old English" encompasses which is older than 1611 or is Beowulf just an example of "Older English?"

[charis humin]

What!!! You mean, this verse isn't in the KJV:

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


:teeth:

[charis humin]

Reasonable,

Old English was spoken from about 500 to 1100 or so, when King Willie brought Norman French with him. Middle English (e.g., Canterbury Tales) went largely unchanged I believe until around the 1500s (any English majors want to correct me on that one?) and modern English emerged. So as archaic as KJ English sounds to us, it still I believe fits within the definition of modern English.

but then again I could be wrong...

[EdJones]

"Old English" was not even spoken in 1611,(of course you didn't know that) they used what was the perfect English.

[charis humin]

my dearest Ed I do hope you post thus in jest...

[yxboom]

Ed has it on good authority that the KJV was the Bible Paul and Moses read.

[Jaltus]

Ed has no arguments and so generally stoops to posting cartoons in lieu of arguments.

In fact, every time I have challenged him to a one on one debate over the KJV, he tends to disappear.

[charis humin]

two can play at that game then,

hey mr. textus receptus, take that :whip:

[Spiritus Naturae]

You name the translation I probably have it...I never got the KJV only thing either :shrug: , but I must say I use the KJV quite a bit for study as it is a pretty good word for word translation, but the bible I use most often is the NASB, another word for word. My first bible was an NIV, a pretty good thought for thought translation. I just like all those thees and thous, man. :read:

[Spiritus Naturae]

:hrm:

I do remember a friend of mine, he was an Independent Baptist Fundamentalist who was really into the whole "KJV is THE Word of God-uh!" and had me read a very highlighted copy of her New Age Bible Versions book. Was impossible to discuss that stuff with him.

[nomad]

actually, this came up in a discussion with my priest the other day (he comes from a baptist, then AG background; AMiA now).

anyways, he said one of the basic reasons for KJV-only has to do with the theory of verbal plenary inspiration, which has implications on inerrancy as well. basically, verbal plenary inspiration means that not only is the overall meaning inspired, but every word choice and punctuation is also inspired. this probably has good support in the greek; it comes up a lot in inerrancy i would think after all, and corresponds to jesus' comment on not one jot or tittle will pass from the law (assuming he was being literal and not hyperbole, this implies also a hebrew version of the law).

the problem appears to be when you try to carry over verbal plenary inspiration into translations. i guess people are very afraid you are going to get wrong doctrine unless you have a version that is verbal plenary inspired (a whole different issue). since, under the verbal plenary inspiration model, not only the content but also word choice and punctuation is required to have an 'inspired' version, there can, by definition, be only one version in a given language. all others are not the inspired version.

it seems a bit of a stretch, but does explain why some people might hold to it. (the above is based on a 5-minute conversation; so it might not be 100% accurate).

the impact on, and theories of, inerrancy might be interesting, actually... i.e. you always hear things like '99% of the greek texts are the same, and the other 1% don't affect any major doctrines'... is this an implicit way of saying that major doctrines can be successfully reasoned for out of a text that is 1% corrupt? (assuming that it is the right 1%, at least :)

obviously, even if you believe the above, that there can only be one version, it does not automatically follow that the KJV IS that one.

neither i nor my priest are KJV-only, just thought this was interesting.

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218702#post218702)
charis humin:

Reasonable,

Old English was spoken from about 500 to 1100 or so, when King Willie brought Norman French with him. Middle English (e.g., Canterbury Tales) went largely unchanged I believe until around the 1500s (any English majors want to correct me on that one?) and modern English emerged. So as archaic as KJ English sounds to us, it still I believe fits within the definition of modern English.

but then again I could be wrong...

Not so much wrong, but the problem is still that we don't speak or write in KJV English. We should be doing what the KJV translators themselves aimed for -- a translation in the "vulgar tongue", i.e. what people speak today.

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218879#post218879)
SpiritusNaturae:

:hrm:

I do remember a friend of mine, he was an Independent Baptist Fundamentalist who was really into the whole &quot;KJV is THE Word of God-uh!&quot; and had me read a very highlighted copy of her New Age Bible Versions book. Was impossible to discuss that stuff with him.

Sadly so. In my experience, we can reach people as they are beginning to fall down the slide into KJV-onlyism, and pull them up and away from this quasi-cultic system. But once they have fallen down past a certain point, it's almost impossible to pull them up again. Any critique of the KJV or G.A. ("God and") Riplinger is an attack on the Word of God itself.

See James White's detailed refutation of NABV
www.aomin.org/NABVR.html (very long!).

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218886#post218886)
nomad:

actually, this came up in a discussion with my priest the other day (he comes from a baptist, then AG background; AMiA now).

:huh: AMiA?


anyways, he said one of the basic reasons for KJV-only has to do with the theory of verbal plenary inspiration, which has implications on inerrancy as well.

I can't see that. The leading inerrantists always ascribe inerrancy to the original autographs, e.g. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm) which most inerrantists on TWeb hold to.


basically, verbal plenary inspiration means that not only is the overall meaning inspired, but every word choice and punctuation is also inspired. this probably has good support in the greek;

Not possible, since the Greek MSS not only lacked punctuation but even spaces between words!


it comes up a lot in inerrancy i would think after all, and corresponds to jesus' comment on not one jot or tittle will pass from the law (assuming he was being literal and not hyperbole, this implies also a hebrew version of the law).

And it was talking about inerrancy of the letters as originally given.


the problem appears to be when you try to carry over verbal plenary inspiration into translations. i guess people are very afraid you are going to get wrong doctrine unless you have a version that is verbal plenary inspired (a whole different issue).

This overlooks that fact that a truth value can be assigned only to propositions, not original words. So it is important to render the propositions accurately, which often requires a different grammatical structure and idiom. E.g. the French say (lit.) "I have a cat in my throat" where we say "frog".


since, under the verbal plenary inspiration model, not only the content but also word choice and punctuation is required to have an 'inspired' version, there can, by definition, be only one version in a given language. all others are not the inspired version.

That's fallacious. There are often several ways to render the same proposition in another language.


it seems a bit of a stretch, but does explain why some people might hold to it. (the above is based on a 5-minute conversation; so it might not be 100% accurate).

I think it sums it up fairly for many KJVOs.


the impact on, and theories of, inerrancy might be interesting, actually... i.e. you always hear things like '99% of the greek texts are the same, and the other 1% don't affect any major doctrines'... is this an implicit way of saying that major doctrines can be successfully reasoned for out of a text that is 1% corrupt? (assuming that it is the right 1%, at least :)

"Corrupt" simply means deviating from the original. But indeed the deviations are very minor even between the "extremes" of the original Westcott-Hort text and the so-called Textus Receptus. For example, in Galatians 1:18, there is no doctrine at stake whether it says "Cephas" in the W/H and NU/UB (khfan or "Peter" (petron) in the TR and the Majority Text, because they were simply the Aramaic and Greek versions of the same name of the same person.


obviously, even if you believe the above, that there can only be one version, it does not automatically follow that the KJV IS that one.

An important point commonly overlooked :highfive:

[nomad]

:huh: AMiA?


Anglican Mission in America. think of us as the conservative part of the american mainline episcopal church, and/or a reaction against the liberalism thereof. i believe my priest traces his succession back through the archbishop of rwanda, which is why it's considered a 'mission in america'.



&quot;Corrupt&quot; simply means deviating from the original. But indeed the deviations are very minor even between the &quot;extremes&quot; of the original Westcott-Hort text and the so-called Textus Receptus. For example, in Galatians 1:18, there is no doctrine at stake whether it says &quot;Cephas&quot; in the W/H and NU/UB (khfan or &quot;Peter&quot; (petron) in the TR and the Majority Text, because they were simply the Aramaic and Greek versions of the same name of the same person.


well, i guess that's where i was going... we say that even though the text we have isn't inerrant (even though the originals may have been), we can still pull 100% accurate theology out of them, because the differences aren't 'material', they aren't significant enough. i would guess you can't say 'if the text is less than 0.9% corrupt, it's OK', but it doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. though, of course, we should strive for a perfect text.

i think this is important; because a translation, by definition, is also often going to lose something of the original, just as a copy sometimes may. so it may not be able to be exact, inerrant, like the original. but as long as these losses are also not material, then we should also be able to get our major doctrines successfully out of it as well.

point being, while we agree that God can, and has, created inerrant originals, we don't have to have a perfectly inerrant copy to exegete good doctrine, we just need a reasonably good one, the holy spirit's guidance, and common sense (with multiple translations for multiplicity of witnesses, if necessary).

would any inerrantists disagree with this? this is the impact on inerrancy. there seem to be two parts of inerrancy: one is what it is, but the other is what impact does it have, what difference does it make to how we read scripture. i haven't seen as much on that (though i haven't really looked).

i realize that this seems to be behind the KJV-only belief, that there is exactly one perfect bible (which may be true), and that you will get errant doctrine unless you are pulling it out of a perfect document (demonstrably untrue, i would think; reading the NIV does not automatically lead to bad doctrine, and all doctrines can be defended as easily from either one). if the second part is true, they may have a point. but i don't think it is true. you can pull bad doctrine out of an NIV, but you can also pull bad doctrine out of a KJV, and likewise you can pull good doctrine out of either.

[charis humin]

Socrates:

Not so much wrong, but the problem is still that we don't speak or write in KJV English. We should be doing what the KJV translators themselves aimed for -- a translation in the "vulgar tongue", i.e. what people speak today.

hmm...I thought I read somewhere that even by the time the KJV was being circulated much of its English was already somewhat dated, is that not true?

[bar Jonah]

Bottom line, as I've said over and over... the 1611 King James Bible is a liar.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

There is no one in the Bible named James. There are many people named Jacob, but not James. There are no apostles named James, and no epistle of James.

The translators of this Bible curried favor with their vain boss, King James, by putting his name in the Bible.

My friend Jeff's wife is from Holland. While they were courting, he made a comment about the book of James. She said, "Huh? What? What are you talking about? There's no book of James... Ohhhh, do you mean the book of Jacob?"

Is this a terribly important lie? No. It was done for one of the worst reasons possible -- political favor -- but it is not a critical doctrinal issue. But the fact remains, it is a lie.

Is the 1611 KJV better than all? Better than most? At least an okay translation? This is a matter of extensive debate.

But this thread is about King James ONLY. And KJO and the claim that this translation is "perfect" ... is an absolutely indefensible position, in light of the fact that it is irrefutably obvious that the 1611 KJV is a liar.

[charis humin]

Right idea:


Bottom line, as I've said over and over... the 1611 King James Bible is a liar.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

There is no one in the Bible named James. There are many people named Jacob, but not James. There are no apostles named James, and no epistle of James.

erm....James comes from the Latin Iacomus, which is derived from the Greek Jacobus, which...well you see where I'm going I'm sure

[bar Jonah]

charis humin:
Right idea:
erm....James comes from the Latin Iacomus, which is derived from the Greek Jacobus, which...well you see where I'm going I'm sure
Uhm, no. James is a European name that didn't even exist in the Middle East at that time... Etymology dictionaries even trace this alleged connection back to the 1600s... when lo and behold the KJV was written. Therefore, circular logic.

James comes from Jacob, therefore the KJV is right.
The KJV defines James as having come from Jacob, therefore it did.

Textbook circular logic.

EVERYWHERE else in the Bible, in both Old and New Testament, the name Yakov is translated as "Jacob."

But when we get to these two disciples and the name of this book ... it's suddenly "James."

Totally, glaringly inconsistent. Yakov is Jacob. Every time.

[EdJones]

Psalm 12
To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.


Does verse 7 refer back to the "words of the Lord" in verse 6 or the "poor" and "godly" of verses 1 and 5?

[charis humin]

Uhm, no. James is a European name that didn't even exist in the Middle East at that time... Etymology dictionaries even trace this alleged connection back to the 1600s... when lo and behold the KJV was written. Therefore, circular logic.

source?

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219264#post219264)
EdJones:
Psalm 12
To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.
1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
Does verse 7 refer back to the &quot;words of the Lord&quot; in verse 6 or the &quot;poor&quot; and &quot;godly&quot; of verses 1 and 5?

The latter, which is obvious from the Hebrew grammar (in case you weren't aware, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew). I demonstrated this at Does Psalm 12 teach word preservation? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=166624#post166624)

[Pilgrim]

Yesterday @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218682#post218682)
Reasonable:



I'm just using the terminology that most websites on this discussion use. Most seem to call it &quot;Old English.&quot; Is there a particular time element that the term &quot;Old English&quot; encompasses which is older than 1611 or is Beowulf just an example of &quot;Older English?&quot;

Beowulf is an example of what is by definition "Old English." Old English is specific form of english from a specific time period. And other than some of the alphabet most people would never recognize it as english because it is so removed from what we know as english.

[Spiritus Naturae]

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/english016/beowulf/beowulf.html

A really good site in regards to "Old English" :bunny:

[EdJones]

09-23-2003 @ 11:58 PM
Jaltus:

Ed has no arguments and so generally stoops to posting cartoons in lieu of arguments.

In fact, every time I have challenged him to a one on one debate over the KJV, he tends to disappear.


Grow up kid, don't flatter yourself.

Jaltus is-
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. -cause you got your head stuffed in a dead greek hole.

[charis humin]

EdJones:

Grow up kid ...

Jaltus is- -cause you got your head stuffed in a dead greek hole.

LOL!!! :rofl:

[Pilgrim]

So then, I guess Ed just dodged you again Jaltus.

Come on Ed, let's set up a one on one debate between yound Jaltus on the KJV issue. What do you say? It should be a good show and informative for all.
:argue:

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 09:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=220643#post220643)
Pilgrim:

So then, I guess Ed just dodged you again Jaltus.

Come on Ed, let's set up a one on one debate between yound Jaltus on the KJV issue. What do you say? It should be a good show and informative for all.
:argue:

:popcorn:

I would like to see this...

[bar Jonah]

NSMinistries:
:popcorn:
I would like to see this...
I would LOVE to see this... :popcorn:

King James preference is debatable and acceptable. King James Only is a form of idol worship that makes the works of men equal with the perfection of God.

[Pilgrim]

Well, what do you say Ed? Ed? Hello Ed?

[EdJones]

05-25-2003 @ 08:55 PM [url=http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=107483#post107483]

Let's cut to the chase; why should we adhere to the Textus Receptus, and why ought we to regard the KJV as an [i]inspired translation? If you think we should adopt these views, I'd be curious to hear why....

The answer is accountability to God. See if don't have one final

authority you can't be pinned down on anything. So we have

these Greek Bible correctors(heady, highminded) who think The

Holy Spirit needs helped out. "Having a form of godliness, but

denying the power thereof: from such turn away."2 Timothy 3:5




2 Timothy 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221418#post221418)
EdJones:

The answer is accountability to God. See if don't have one final authority you can't be pinned down on anything.

I must have missed the premise needed to make the KJVO argument valid: "And this final authority is the KJV", let along any justification for the truth of the premise required for a sound argument.


So we have these Greek Bible correctors(heady, highminded) who think The Holy Spirit needs helped out.

Ah yes, more cheap psychologizing of motives. Of course I'd rather say that because the Holy Spirit inspired the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, it is being faithful to Him to find out what He originally inspired.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Yesterday @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221418#post221418)
EdJones:



The answer is accountability to God. See if don't have one final

authority you can't be pinned down on anything. So we have

these Greek Bible correctors(heady, highminded) who think The

Holy Spirit needs helped out. &quot;Having a form of godliness, but

denying the power thereof: from such turn away.&quot;2 Timothy 3:5




2 Timothy 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Ed,
How were the translators of the KJV any different from other people who have translated the scriptures from the original languages? After all, if one believes in preservation, couldn't one see earlier translations as being authoritative and the work of the KJV as also done by a group of "Greek Bible correctors?" What sets the KJV apart, in your view?

[Pilgrim]

(Hmm, maybe there is something to Ed's technique of dodging, maybe I'll try it and see what happens...:shrug:)

hey Ed,

"Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin." Proverbs 20:4 When are you going to get with the lamp of the righteous? :poke: :angel:

[Pilgrim]

But seriously folks...How about that one on one debate...got it in you Ed?

[NSMinistries]

Yesterday @ 07:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221418#post221418)
EdJones:



The answer is accountability to God. See if don't have one final

authority you can't be pinned down on anything. So we have

these Greek Bible correctors(heady, highminded) who think The

Holy Spirit needs helped out. &quot;Having a form of godliness, but

denying the power thereof: from such turn away.&quot;2 Timothy 3:5




2 Timothy 3:4
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

So those that penned the Bible before 1611 did not have God's stamp of approval?

and is the 1611 the only KJV accepted by yourself or is it one of the latter versions?

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221683#post221683)
pereynol:

How were the translators of the KJV any different from other people who have translated the scriptures from the original languages? After all, if one believes in preservation, couldn't one see earlier translations as being authoritative and the work of the KJV as also done by a group of &quot;Greek Bible correctors?&quot; What sets the KJV apart, in your view?

:hrm: Yeah, how dare Erasmus produce the Textus Receptus when God had used the Latin Vulgate for a thousand years? :huh:

[EdJones]

09-23-2003 @ 11:26 PM
charis humin:

my dearest Ed I do hope you post thus in jest...

All jesting aside Charis.





"...the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which...owes its merit, not to 17th-century English -- which was very different -- but to its faithful translation of the original." by Edward F. Hills

[Pilgrim]

You talk as though you actually think the Biblical authors thought in English but then spoke in greek or hebrew. As if there is a specific greek word for "thou" and not for "you."

[Thomas2003]

Is it okay to modernize the KJ and get rid of the "thy, thou, ye, etc" or does God still desire us to speak old English? To me is seems many KJO's live in a small world, clueless to the rest of humanity.

Dear Reasonable,

No, it is not. Because it is not "old English." The translation is not what they spoke at that time. The reason is that the translation committee created a system of biblical english to translate into and retain original idioms of the underlying tongues.

For example, "you and ye" are singular and plural consistent with the underlying language - which we don't have in english. Same thing with thee/thou, Lord/LORD as the difference in adonia and YHWH &c.

So, if you want an accurate rendition of the text you need to keep that or something similar that makes the distinction and not leave it up to "feeling" of how a translation speaks to you.

So, if you translated biblical texts and created some system to move the meanings of words into your language which wasn't inflective and doesn't have many of the words - you would end up with an "archaic" english translation in 2003 because it would be a faithful translation to an archaic language.

Does that make sense? There are only several dozen words that have changed their meanings and that can be done with footnotes.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:25 we have the word "shambles" in reference to a meat market. We don't use that word anymore but they could easily put in a footnote that said, "shambles is what we call marketplace."

In contrast, the good and godly that are supposedly only interested in bringing the true light to us, bring in footnotes all manner of discrediting and injurius comments questioning the validity of the Holy Scripture.

You'll find that in this argument very little is about honoring God, leading men to repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ but rather some Dr. Poohbah gaining a high seat where everyone bows low before his scholarly knowledge and ability to correct the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture.

Babbaaloo Dr. Poohbah, Baabbaloo! I'm going to go out tomorrow and preach in the streets and make light known to the ignorant masses that the more reliable translation of the word shambles is marketplace and many other like things - people are going to drop to their knees in sackclothe and ashes and repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ and Dr. Poohbah is going to be praised as the evangelist of the decade!

Reasonable, have you ever led anyone to Christ before using this type of language - "the more reliable and oldest and better manuscripts say?"



I think the language thing is a big argument against the KJ because some words have actually changed meaning in modern English. I don't mean the KJ is wrong because it uses Old English, What I am saying is that if it gives incorrect conclussions or not as clear an understanding to the modern reader because of its language, then that is a strike against it. Not that it was translated wrong, it is simply out-dated and gives the reader the wrong understanding in some instances.

No, after the Authorized Version came out it quickly became the standard of God's word. It began transforming mens mind to the Gospel in English and those men began transforming the world to God's word. Man's life was framed around the Scriptures and his law and life expressed that for several centuries - with very little change to the language, other than standardization and spelling. Words were used with precision and meaning and Scripture held sway over man's mind and he trembled and held it in awe and held God in esteem.

It is only in the last 100 years or so that the Scriptures have been rejected by Christians and thus their lives are framed around the world and its plenary word - and they demand that Gods word conform to their profanity. They have become blasphemers in their language and profane and wicked.

If this issue was really about the archaic english of the Authorized Version then that can be corrected with a few dozen footnotes in a new version. Problem is solved. If it was about all the errors in the Authorized Version - then surely they can be corrected and print a new version, right?

There was a big difference in the quality and character of people from 1600 to 1900 and the English bible had a lot to do with that and the debasement of the English bible in 1900 has had a lot to do with the explosion of sin - because it has removed the Bible from the mind of man.

The language has not become "outdated" the modern tongue has become profane along with the modern mind.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=221974#post221974)
EdJones, citing the loopy Edward F. Hills:

"...the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which...owes its merit, not to 17th-century English -- which was very different -- but to its faithful translation of the original."

I'd rather go by the KJV translators themselves. In the preface to the original KJV, titled ‘The Translators to the Reader’, the translators explained that their aim was to translate the Bible into the vulgar (common), everyday language just like the New Testament was originally, not some archaic language or dialect:

‘Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]’
‘But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.’

With this aim, the KJV translators would have applauded a faithful translation into everyday, 20th century language that people can understand. Indeed, they wrote:

‘Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded’.

So the KJV translators themselves were explicitly NOT KJVO! :bonk:

[Pilgrim]

It just does not get many more simple than that. Thanks Socrates. Have some pearls for providing good context.

[charis humin]

Ed Jones:


"...it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which...owes its merit, not to 17th-century English -- which was very different..."


this is an odd claim. The very nature of language is that it is an agent for two constituencies to communicate with one another, any language that was never "spoken anywhere" would seem to contradict that, which suggests God and his holy KJV translators were funning with us, building up a linguistic barrier to people who would otherwise have had a more direct access to the gospel message.

Maybe they should have written it in Esperanto instead, at least some people have come to speak that. :teeth:


-- but to its faithful translation of the original

but THAT is the issue at hand! to what extent did the Greek from which they made their translation itself reflect faithfully to the original autographs?

[charis humin]

Socrates

With this aim, the KJV translators would have applauded a faithful translation into everyday, 20th century language that people can understand. Indeed, they wrote:



Indeed!

[Jaltus]

Ed,

I challenge you to a one on one debate over whether the King James Bible is the only Bible which is authoritative for today.

This will be the third time I have formally challenged you.

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 01:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222459#post222459)
charis humin:




this is an odd claim. The very nature of language is that it is an agent for two constituencies to communicate with one another, any language that was never &quot;spoken anywhere&quot; would seem to contradict that, which suggests God and his holy KJV translators were funning with us, building up a linguistic barrier to people who would otherwise have had a more direct access to the gospel message.

Maybe they should have written it in Esperanto instead, at least some people have come to speak that. :teeth:



but THAT is the issue at hand! to what extent did the Greek from which they made their translation itself reflect faithfully to the original autographs? [/QUOTE]

What Dr. Hill was explaining was similar to what I explained - the english was a literary creation to represent the original tongues in english consisently between Hebrew and Greek.

Your last statement is disingenous. If that argument is what people are truly wanting to address, then you don't attack a translation of a different text and call it archaic and in error and a poor translation. It shouldn't even be an issue since you are coming to the table with the "REAL BIBLE."

Be upfront and tell people what you are doing - don't tell people you are revising the Authorized Version and switch texts in secret. If you believe the conflate theory say so - don't lie and pretend to be a Christian. If you think the Bible is mythology and Moses is a myth - then you necessary think Jesus is a myth.

Don't try to pass yourself as some great Christian when your purpose is to textually prove the Bible is a lie.

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222548#post222548)
Jaltus:

Ed,

I challenge you to a one on one debate over whether the King James Bible is the only Bible which is authoritative for today.

This will be the third time I have formally challenged you.

I might take you up on that, don't know if I'm qualified or not though. I don't agree with most of the King James Only crowd because they are anti-calvinist and dispensational, thus I find their reasoning specious. A lot of thier concepts seem to be based upon dispensational thought - not to say they cannot do some scholary work, but much of their work does seem to be filtered through this dispensational premise.

But I do believe the Authorized Version is the only authoritative Bible for Reformation Countries like the United States.

Cordially,

Thomas

[charis humin]

What Dr. Hill was explaining was similar to what I explained - the english was a literary creation to represent the original tongues in english consisently between Hebrew and Greek.

Your last statement is disingenous. If that argument is what people are truly wanting to address, then you don't attack a translation of a different text and call it archaic and in error and a poor translation. It shouldn't even be an issue since you are coming to the table with the "REAL BIBLE."

Be upfront and tell people what you are doing - don't tell people you are revising the Authorized Version and switch texts in secret. If you believe the conflate theory say so - don't lie and pretend to be a Christian. If you think the Bible is mythology and Moses is a myth - then you necessary think Jesus is a myth.

Don't try to pass yourself as some great Christian when your purpose is to textually prove the Bible is a lie.



Allow me to clarify. I wasn't attacking the bible as God's authoritative word nor the KJV. Of course I did not declare so from the beginning and I can see the possibility of concluding that. I was probably laying the sarcasm a little too strong in my retort to Ed.

In fact, I would say (indeed contradicting the mood of what I had stated before I concede) that the AV/KJV was an important milestone in the movement to bring God's word to His people - it wasn't the only effort, mind you, nevertheless I think most reasonable people would recognize the service the translators did for the church in England in the 17th century in casting the Hebrew, Greek, and even Latin scriptures into something accessible to all.


Man's life was framed around the Scriptures and his law and life expressed that for several centuries - with very little change to the language, other than standardization and spelling. Words were used with precision and meaning and Scripture held sway over man's mind and he trembled and held it in awe and held God in esteem.

It is only in the last 100 years or so that the Scriptures have been rejected by Christians and thus their lives are framed around the world and its plenary word

two comments: one, which I think has been echoed in this thread, is that language is dynamic, fluid. It changes, there is nothing that can (or need) be done about that. So if the gospel would reach more on account of it being told in a vernacular palatable to them, let it be so.

second comment: having said that, I do agree that the Western world has become alarmingly secularized, replacing the God of the Scriptures with the god of individualism and materialism. And many, including certain unnamed skeptics on TWeb, want MUCH but do LITTLE. I think this attitude has infiltrated the church too. I will give you one example: many Christians I know abhorr our great hymns simply for the reason that they are too old and stale! This is not a slam on contemporary worship music, but I think it tragic that people are not willing to dig a little deeper and reflect on the treasure troves of truth hymns are.

And if so with hymns, how much more with the King James?

[bar Jonah]

Thomas2003:
I don't agree with most of the King James Only crowd because they are anti-calvinist and dispensational, thus I find their reasoning specious.

Cordially,

Thomas
Huh?

I would say the exact opposite! I've met far more KJOs that are Calvinist, and I know almost no dispensational KJOs. In fact I know absolutely zero in person, and the only place I have ever run across any at all is a bit of a clique of them on PalTalk; that's about it.

Where'd you get this idea? :huh:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 04:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222622#post222622)
Thomas2003:


I don't agree with most of the King James Only crowd because they are anti-calvinist and dispensational, thus I find their reasoning specious. A lot of thier concepts seem to be based upon dispensational thought - not to say they cannot do some scholary work, but much of their work does seem to be filtered through this dispensational premise.

Please explain and document these statements; I really don't see the connection....



But I do believe the Authorized Version is the only authoritative Bible for Reformation Countries like the United States.

Cordially,

Thomas

Why would the KJV be the "only authoritative Bible for Reformation countries like the United States?" And what criteria might one employ to determine whether a country is a "Reformation country?" What other countries are "reformation countries"---and if the residents of such states do not speak English, might they be entitled to other translations? Would you, for example, see Luther's translation as authoritative for Germany?

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222622#post222622)
Thomas2003:

But I do believe the Authorized Version is the only authoritative Bible for Reformation Countries like the United States.

Come off it! The Pilgrim Fathers took the Geneva Bible with them. Now that is truly Reformed, rather than Anglo-Catholic like the KJV which supported bishops and named the apostle Jacob "James" after their king, who persecuted the Pilgrims. In fact, the Geneva Bible was used by Shakespeare—and by the KJV translators themselves in their preface!

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222697#post222697)
RightIdea, replying to:


Thomas2003:
I don't agree with most of the King James Only crowd because they are anti-calvinist and dispensational, thus I find their reasoning specious.

Huh?

I would say the exact opposite! I've met far more KJOs that are Calvinist, and I know almost no dispensational KJOs. In fact I know absolutely zero in person, and the only place I have ever run across any at all is a bit of a clique of them on PalTalk; that's about it.

I'm not denying RI's personal experience, but of the major published KJVOs, Riplinger and Ruckman are fanatically anti-Calvinist. Riplinger even said that the Five Points of Calvinism formed a Satanic Pentagram :duh: Ignoring the loopy numerology behind this which pervades her book New Age Bible Versions, what does that say about the Five Points of Arminian in the Remonstrance, to which the Calvinists were reacting?

Conversely, the leading anti-KJVO James White is a Calvinist.

[EdJones]

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT Or the Scholarship Only Cult. (you know who you are)

1. There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God.

2. Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled.

3. Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

5. However, this series of writings was LOST, and the God Who inspired them was UNABLE TO PRESERVE THEIR CONTENT through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word "CHRISTIAN" originated (Acts 11:26).

6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called HIS SON OUT of Egypt (Mat. 2), JACOB OUT of Egypt (Gen. 49), ISRAEL OUT of Egypt (Exod. 15), and JOSEPH'S BONES OUT of Egypt (Exod. 13).

7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate - though, of course, there is NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY FOR DETERMINING TRUTH AND ERROR: it is a matter of "preference" - are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are "almost the originals," although NOT QUITE.

8. The most INACCURATE TRANSLATIONS were those that brought about the GERMAN REFORMATION (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide MISSIONARY MOVEMENT of the English speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

9. But we can "tolerate" these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY THAT ANYONE CAN READ, TEACH, PREACH, OR HANDLE, the whole thing is a matter of "PREFERENCE." You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what WE prefer: let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

This is the creed of the Alexandrian/Scholarship Only Cult.

[bar Jonah]

Outstanding...

Now, if only there was such a thing, your point would actually be valid. :ahem:

[Jaltus]

Ed Jones is a wuss.

I am challenging you for the FOURTH time to a debate. Either put up or shut up, kid.

All you do is cut and paste from your favorite KJVO cultic site and ignore actual arguments. Sorry, but I believe with my eyes wide open, not shut, because I want to see the wonderful work of God, whereas you seem to have the firm belief that if you shut your eyes tightly enough you can get to heaven by stumbling and bumbling along.

Frankly, I think God gave us our brains for a reason, and it sure was not to repeat the mindless drivel that you delve out.

So come on and either debate me or shut your mouth. Show your true colors!

[Thomas2003]

In fact, I would say (indeed contradicting the mood of what I had stated before I concede) that the AV/KJV was an important milestone in the movement to bring God's word to His people - it wasn't the only effort, mind you, nevertheless I think most reasonable people would recognize the service the translators did for the church in England in the 17th century in casting the Hebrew, Greek, and even Latin scriptures into something accessible to all.

Yes, but it did much much more than this, and when it is attacked the fruit of its work is attacked and hence the work of the Holy Spirit in history.

Generally, this is done by men who don't have fruit - will not embrace the faith to produce fruit, but find the buds of their fruit in destroying the fruit that testifies of Christ in history. Because their testimony stands in sharp contrast to it.

There is "something" special about the Authorized Version that some 20 different versions and the entire body of higher textual criticism and hundreds of men still can't finally correct after 140 years. They never perfect their errant works with the numerous editions of the NIV, for example, you can't even tell it is the same publication today as in its original form as they've put back in thousands of the supposed errant readings. They are still trying to correct the error filled Authorized Version. Each new version is finally going to correct that error filled Authorized Version.


two comments: one, which I think has been echoed in this thread, is that language is dynamic, fluid. It changes, there is nothing that can (or need) be done about that. So if the gospel would reach more on account of it being told in a vernacular palatable to them, let it be so.

No, it's not. A languages purpose is to be precise and express ideas and concepts, especially in law. You don't change the law. When Congress writes a law do you change it? Once it becomes standardized it should not change - and to the extent it does change it is an attack upon the foundation of social order.

This is God's law we are talking about, the codification of the Common Law and acceptance by the Kingdom of England, Ireland and Scotland following their consummation in the Solemn League and Covenant.

The concept of brining the Scriptures into the "vulgar tongue" was not bringing them into a fluid state of constant change where man's evolutionary beliefs form the standard of Law as Metzger holds....."that the work of translation is never finished."

That is the same liberal concept the Supreme Court holds to - that law is living and fluid and must constantly be reinterpreted (i.e., translated in light of the moral consensus) to meet man in his evolutionary change.

We can say that with the standardization of the English language, spelling and punctuation that the revisions to the Authorized Version are legitimate, and maybe a new revision is needed to address some minor issues, such as I outlined and can easily be dealt with in footnotes.

But certainly not the wholesale negation of the foundation of Reformed Protestant Social Order and the common law derived from it in favor of some "new american standard" that has shown its head to be communism.

When the Protestants attacked the doctrines and texts of the Roman Church they were also attacking the society of the Roman order. This is because Roman law and order was never corrected with Biblical theology - it was sycretised with it. So, the protestants are continuing the work of the Apostles in the Great Commission attacking the religion of man - his state and his god through the divinization of political power.

Wycliffe's attack upon the priesthood and translation of the Vulgate in English was for the "government of the people, by the people and for the people" flowing from Christ as King and High Priest. This is continued in Protetantism until they leave the shores of England and come here for the purposes of advancing the Christian Faith.

This is built upon the Common Law of England and the English Authorized Version of God's law, so it's not just a matter of "language", it's a matter of law.

Christians today believe they can decide for themselves which Bible they are going to believe and apply to their lives. OK, then I want that same liberty when it comes to United States Code - I'll decide for myself which one is correct and that I am going to believe and apply to my life. And no one can claim absolutely that this or that is the correct reading of United States Code because "good men disagree."


second comment: having said that, I do agree that the Western world has become alarmingly secularized, replacing the God of the Scriptures with the god of individualism and materialism. And many, including certain unnamed skeptics on TWeb, want MUCH but do LITTLE. I think this attitude has infiltrated the church too. I will give you one example: many Christians I know abhorr our great hymns simply for the reason that they are too old and stale! This is not a slam on contemporary worship music, but I think it tragic that people are not willing to dig a little deeper and reflect on the treasure troves of truth hymns are.

That is the same spirit that attacks all Christian history - it is an attack upon the Christian Faith simply expressed in this venue. Reminds me of the famous hymn, "Alas and did my Saviour Die". One stanza reads in contrast of Christ and man "as a worm like me," another rendition "as the wretched like me," another rendition "as a sinner like me," and finally the new version, "as a man like me."

This is a theological expression of the denial of sin in the alterations of that hymn. Man has moved from a position in sin so low he is but a worm to walking as a man on equal terms with Christ. He no longer needs to be saved through repentance and faith - but merit the merit of Christ.

Have you noticed that the theological concept of "repentance" seems to disappear along with the other errors of the Authorized Version? If you walk in those circles you'll find it is a doctrine of Love and Faith, not Repentance and Faith.


And if so with hymns, how much more with the King James?

It is an attack upon the law and Chalcedonian orthodoxy - that Christ alone is King and High Priest. We, of course, do not attribute this to James but to God's work and the work of the Holy Spirit through the word. James became a scallywag - but in the beginning of his reign he did a lot of good works toward building a godly society - the rest of his life he got infected with the divine right of Kings and spent all of his time trying to theologically prove it.

Either this is the Holy Scripture in the English language or it is not, and if it is not, then what is and where is its fruit? Or must I always need this new priestclass of interpretators to always translate it afresh for me each Sunday? Will they read from the original tongue for me on my behalf?

What can I believe, if anything, is God's word? Or is it like Arius - unknowable in some mythical inerrant originals that no one has? If the Authorized Version is not God's word - which everyone seems to agree on - what is God's infallible word that I can know with certainty what His will is?

Is the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture and Noah Websters dictionary sufficient for me to be throughly furnished unto all good works; or do I need 47 different versions, thousands of manuscripts, dozens of lexicons, hundreds of opinions and works on translation - not to mention a PHD in linguistics - to finally once and for all decide for myself, all by myself, what God really said?

Can I reliably come to this religion by Grace through Faith in this enscripturated word of the Authorized Version; or am I lost and going to hell because I don't have a PHD from Harvard in linguistics?

People argue that they can exegete the protestant faith from the Roman bible, thus it is of equal authority with the Protestant Bible and thus we shouldn't be concerned with the removal of 30,000 Protestant readings from the new bibles.

This may be true, but I guess it depends on one's willingness to spill that blood all over again - because one thing you cannot do is exegete the Roman Catholic faith from the Protestant Bible without terminating all those Authorized Version errors. The Protestant Bible will not allow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith to succeed in the heart and mind - the Vatican knows that, that is why it is illegal literature, a mortal not venal sin.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Thomas2003]

Yesterday @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=222697#post222697)
RightIdea:


Huh?

I would say the exact opposite! I've met far more KJOs that are Calvinist, and I know almost no dispensational KJOs. In fact I know absolutely zero in person, and the only place I have ever run across any at all is a bit of a clique of them on PalTalk; that's about it.

Where'd you get this idea? :huh:

There is a difference between King James Version advocates and King James Version onlyists.

There are calvinist King James Version advocates - but most are not. In Reformed circles it is rare to find one who uses an Authorized Version. At least I've never met many.

Generally, your dispensational and independent baptists are King James Versin onlyists - at least the way I understand the definition of the term and where I find it.

I can't really identify with them because while they support the Authorized Version in name they generally teach the literal doctrine of the New International Version via it's "dynamic equivalence". So, in application of their dispensational hermeunetic the Authorized Version becomes through the rubric of interpretation the NIV.

Cordially,

Thomas

[Pilgrim]

Ed, are you there, Ed? :poke:

[EdJones]

Yes?

[Jaltus]

Well, I know he does not have me on ignore, because you cannot ignore Admins, but I bet he is "ignoring" me anyway.

[Pilgrim]

hey since you're here Ed, how about agreeing to the one on one with Jaltus?

[jesusreligion]

Why any bible at all? I mean I love to read the scriptures and allow the spirit of God to reveal hidden truths, but why would I wish to fall under law by allowing a book or another man's ideas about God to lead me? Isn't that the job of the Holy Spirit?

"For it is those who are led by the spirit of God, who are the sons of God." (I quote scripture for your help)

Those who argue for the King Jimmy wish to have a law of do's and do not's to line their lives (and other's lives) up to. "The letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life." (I quote scripture for your help only) Oh, wait a minute...I know your reply: "That is dangerous. The devil could mislead you." I say the devil (your carnal mind) has already misled you! You look outwardly for your leading and answers and neglect/reject the very life-giving spirit within you!

I suppose the King Jimmy and other bible translations are what you imagine to be the "word of God?" You pay homage and reverence to a printed page that was written by men (some of it being spiritually inspired; other parts being carnally inspired). Hey, I have an idea! How about all of us allowing the spirit of God to speak to our hearts and hear God for ourselves? Why would we want to send Moses up to the mount for us? Are we afraid to also know God personally? Are you afraid of God, or do you think He cannot speak to you, today! By the way, the spirit of God IS the word of God...not the bible, whether King Jimmy or not.

If you think the bible is the "word of God," then look at John 1:

It states that, "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." If your bible is the word of God, then that scripture (which you uphold so dearly) proves your idea wrong; otherwise, your bible is "God." And to you, it probably very well is god to you, as it dictates what you can and cannot do, as you try and interpret it for your life's answers. You are wasting your time with dead religion; the same dead religion Jesus spoke against 2000 years ago...law.

[bar Jonah]

Actually, JesusReligion, that's a very good and respectable question. I'm glad you asked it, and I believe I have a good answer for you.

Ever try to sit on a 2-legged stool? It doesn't work. Takes at least three legs for it to be stable. And our moral accountability as Christians works much the same way, I believe. This is why God gives us three things that work together to keep us as much in His will as possible. (Please keep in mind this applies to those who are a new creation in Christ -- to we saints, not to sinners.)

The Holy Spirit lives in our hearts, indwelling us and guiding us far more accurately than our consciences ever did before we were saved. But as a rule, God does not violate our free will, even after we are saved. He may push us, pull us, at times reshape us. But He expects us to open our eyes and ears and hearts and submit to His will. It is, however, possible to ignore the Holy Spirit's guidance. And sadly, this is the case with a great many Christians today. And even worse, the more practice you get at it, the better you get, sometimes even to the point that the Christian doesn't even resemble a Christian in any way, shape or form anymore. Other Christians rely on subjective experience to be their "guide," and this sometimes means they decide what the Holy Spirit is supposedly telling them -- they hear what they want to hear. Such are bound to be the least in Heaven. I've personally met people who claimed they are Christian, and that God "told" them that reincarnation is true. Of course, the Holy Spirit tells me it's not true. Who's right? We can't both be. Here, subjective experience enters the picture, requiring a counterbalance. This is exactly why God doesn't wish us to rely on His Spirit alone as our source of guidance.

God's Holy Word, the scriptures, the Bible acts as a bedrock foundation of truth that we can check our "conscience" against to make sure we're not just deciding to hear what we want to hear from God. This is how we know reincarnation isn't true, how we know Jesus is undeniably God, how we know of the offer of salvation and the purpose of the cross, the reconciliation of mankind to Him, etc. We can pray, we can listen to His Spirit, but then we can check this against scripture. Plus, different people have different "skill levels" when it comes to discernment and opening their minds and hearts to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but scripture says what it says. And yet, here we also have some practical limitations, and this is to be expected when God's word is put on rotten wood pulp in an imperfect human language. Multiple interpretations, multiple disagreeing manuscripts and no autographs... this leads to questions and disagreements on interpretation. His Word offers a solid foundation against which to check one's subjective experience, but it still is limited in its ability to help us understand His truth perfectly.

Brothers and sisters in Christ hold us accountable to both our openness to and discernment of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and to how we read and interpret scripture. Even with the two above, if we are alone in our fellowship with God, we can still sometimes rationalize ourselves right into a hole in the ground. Accountability within the Body of Christ is repeatedly exhorted in the New Testament, especially in Paul's letters. And again, alone this isn't enough...

But when these three work together, it can be a powerfully edifying force in a Christian's life. Each holding the other two accountable, creating a stable structure that will hold up. Like that three-legged stool.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Please let me add a Jewish point-of-view.

While the KJV may be a classic work of English literature and while it may have had a decisive role in shaping & influencing the evolution of modern English prose, it is NOT the word of God. Neither is any other version of the Tanakh in any language other than the original, i.e. Hebrew (and those parts of Ezra, Nehemiah & Daniel that are in Aramaic). God did not say, "Let there be light"; He said Vayehi or. He did not speak to Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Solomon, Isaiah, etc. in 17th century English, or 3rd century CE Greek but in Hebrew. A lot of my work is Hebrew-to-English translating. Gregory Rabassa, one of the masters of our craft (he's translated all of Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez's works from Spanish to English), has written extensively on the theory of translation. He says that there is no such thing as a translation per se. He says that all languages have a unique ability to shape and impart thoughts and ideas that simply cannot be reproduced, copied or duplicated in any other language. Thus, Sr. Rabassa says that every "translation" is, necessarily, an interpretation (Whose? The translators'). I do not want to read an interpretation of God's words, I want to read God's words in the original. It is our belief that only the original Hebrew version of the scriptures can, in any way, be considered authoritative (to say nothing of authentic). We view "translations" of the Tanakh as, at best, study aids and, at worse, gross misrepresentations of God's words (which were, after all, originally recorded/spoken in Hebrew).

The 10th of the Hebrew month of Tevet (which was Sunday, Dec. 15) is a dawn-to-nightfall fast day (one of four such days on our calendar). On it we mark the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. But it also marks the translation of the Torah into Greek under the auspices of Ptolemy II (the so-called Septuagint). That the Torah was translated into another language is considered a cause for sadness & a reason to mourn. Our Sages say that when the Torah was translated (into Greek), (spiritual) darkness descended on the world.

Please let me add that merely because the Tanakh's original language is Hebrew, doesn't mean that it's not for all people. There are lots of non-Jews the world over who know enough Biblical Hebrew to be able to read & study the Tanakh in the original.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Socrates]

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225001#post225001)
stillsmallvoice:

Please let me add a Jewish point-of-view.

While the KJV may be a classic work of English literature and while it may have had a decisive role in shaping & influencing the evolution of modern English prose, it is NOT the word of God. Neither is any other version of the Tanakh in any language other than the original, i.e. Hebrew (and those parts of Ezra, Nehemiah &amp; Daniel that are in Aramaic). God did not say, &quot;Let there be light&quot;; He said Vayehi or.

:idea: Doesn't that mean "and there was light", not "let there be light"? :huh:

I should point out that most Christian defenders of inerrancy also believe that it applies to the originals, including most on TWeb.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Socrates posted:


Doesn't that mean "and there was light", not "let there be light"? :huh:

No, it means Vayehi or, just as God spoke it!

What gets lost in translation? In a word, everything!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225014#post225014)
stillsmallvoice:

No, it means Vayehi or, just as God spoke it!

What gets lost in translation? In a word, everything!

Oh come on. What gets lost going from Vayehi or to "and there was light"? And this IS the closest translation, ken?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yesterday @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=224735#post224735)
jesusreligion:

Why any bible at all? I mean I love to read the scriptures and allow the spirit of God to reveal hidden truths, but why would I wish to fall under law by allowing a book or another man's ideas about God to lead me? Isn't that the job of the Holy Spirit?

&quot;For it is those who are led by the spirit of God, who are the sons of God.&quot; (I quote scripture for your help)

Those who argue for the King Jimmy wish to have a law of do's and do not's to line their lives (and other's lives) up to. &quot;The letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.&quot; (I quote scripture for your help only) Oh, wait a minute...I know your reply: &quot;That is dangerous. The devil could mislead you.&quot; I say the devil (your carnal mind) has already misled you! You look outwardly for your leading and answers and neglect/reject the very life-giving spirit within you!

I suppose the King Jimmy and other bible translations are what you imagine to be the &quot;word of God?&quot; You pay homage and reverence to a printed page that was written by men (some of it being spiritually inspired; other parts being carnally inspired). Hey, I have an idea! How about all of us allowing the spirit of God to speak to our hearts and hear God for ourselves? Why would we want to send Moses up to the mount for us? Are we afraid to also know God personally? Are you afraid of God, or do you think He cannot speak to you, today! By the way, the spirit of God IS the word of God...not the bible, whether King Jimmy or not.

If you think the bible is the &quot;word of God,&quot; then look at John 1:

It states that, &quot;in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.&quot; If your bible is the word of God, then that scripture (which you uphold so dearly) proves your idea wrong; otherwise, your bible is &quot;God.&quot; And to you, it probably very well is god to you, as it dictates what you can and cannot do, as you try and interpret it for your life's answers. You are wasting your time with dead religion; the same dead religion Jesus spoke against 2000 years ago...law.

I am sorry but this is completely wrong-headed. Jesus was confronted with questions and challenges very often referred to the Scriptures for His responses. "Have you not read?" He NEVER said or asked "What is the Holy Spirit telling you?" Never, ever do the Scripture writers ask us to rely upon subjective experiences..... what were the Bereans counted noble for? Asking the Holy Spirit for a subjective experience daily to confirm Paul's world? No. They searched the Scriptures daily! A subjective experience can only come alongside the objective word, which is the only way that we can test the spirits.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Socrates, Hebrew is a rich language given to a wide range of interpretations and meanings (and many layers thereof), which is an inherent & inseparable part of the Tanakh, and which is lost in any other language. Translating the Tanakh into another language robs it of this part of its essence and, in effect, stuffs it into a literary & spiritual straitjacket. Our Sages derive meaning from the very letters of the Tanakh! God gave it in Hebrew; why should we not study it in Hebrew? If He had wanted to say, "Let there me light!" He would have & could have done so; but He didn't. Should we not accept & honor His choice?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Pilgrim]

It's an interesting line to walk isn't it Dee Dee. Obviously scripture is given for our instruction and encouragement and yet our ultimate binding is to the Living Word, Christ and not to he written word. It's easy to cross the line and lose one over the other if we are not carefull.

[Dee Dee Warren]

If He had wanted to say, "Let there me light!" He would have & could have done so; but He didn't. Should we not accept & honor His choice?

That makes no sense. There is no magic in the language used but in the meanings conveyed and that meaning is just as valid no matter which language it is translated into. Perhaps there needs to be more words to explain one word (ie rigid word for word is not the always the best translative method) but what you are advocating elevates those who can read Hebrew (and he Hebrew we read today is not the original, many things have changed, there were no pointers then - is it dishonoring to God's choice to read a pointed text?).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 06:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225039#post225039)
Pilgrim:

It's an interesting line to walk isn't it Dee Dee. Obviously scripture is given for our instruction and encouragement and yet our ultimate binding is to the Living Word, Christ and not to he written word. It's easy to cross the line and lose one over the other if we are not carefull.


Actually since there is no contradiction between the two, and it only by special revelation, ie the Bible in most cases, that we can even learn about Christ, and He was absolutely faithful to the Word and appealed to it, why should not we?

[Pilgrim]

"Since there is no Conrtadiction between the two" I like that. Perhaps one of the problems with much of the more liberal scholarship is that it has created a false dillema between th written word and the living word that need not be there. Sor of an "excluded middle" on the largest scale.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225047#post225047)
Pilgrim:

&quot;Since there is no Conrtadiction between the two&quot; I like that. Perhaps one of the problems with much of the more liberal scholarship is that it has created a false dillema between th written word and the living word that need not be there. Sor of an &quot;excluded middle&quot; on the largest scale.

I couldn't agree more.

[jesusreligion]

[QUOTE]Today @ 04:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225001#post225001)
stillsmallvoice:

A lot of my work is Hebrew-to-English translating. Gregory Rabassa, one of the masters of our craft (he's translated all of Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez's works from Spanish to English), has written extensively on the theory of translation. He says that there is no such thing as a translation per se. He says that all languages have a unique ability to shape and impart thoughts and ideas that simply cannot be reproduced, copied or duplicated in any other language. Thus, Sr. Rabassa says that every &quot;translation&quot; is, necessarily, an interpretation (Whose? The translators').


I agree with part of your above assessment of human language. Everyone has a different understanding for "words" based upon human experience. What I may know the word "love" to mean could be totally different than what you may call "love." Therefore, I choose to rely on the Spirit within to lead me...not words on a printed page. I appreciate your "take" on things. The other poster didn't answer any of my questions...

Allow me to open up a hornet's nest; but I gotta' know...as a Hebrew scholar, you will know the answer. Do or did Jewish people ever believe in an eternal hell? I had a Jewish friend over to my house who told me that an eternal hell was never taught by Jewish Rabbis...that would include Jesus, I might add. This Jewish friend said that hell to a Jew has always been a place here on earth...meaning this life. Yet, Christianity has taught the eternal hell doctrine AFTER Jesus left this earth. The doctrine of an eternal hell is not in the new testament; yet, words are translated to say such incorrectly (eg. aion=age; translated "eternal" & "forever")

Thank you for your reply. I may post it on my website...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225052#post225052)
jesusreligion:

[QUOTE]Today @ 04:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&amp;postid=225001#post225001)
stillsmallvoice:

A lot of my work is Hebrew-to-English translating. Gregory Rabassa, one of the masters of our craft (he's translated all of Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez's works from Spanish to English), has written extensively on the theory of translation. He says that there is no such thing as a translation per se. He says that all languages have a unique ability to shape and impart thoughts and ideas that simply cannot be reproduced, copied or duplicated in any other language. Thus, Sr. Rabassa says that every &amp;quot;translation&amp;quot; is, necessarily, an interpretation (Whose? The translators').

Do you think that reading words makes meanings jump into your head through osmosis? Even reading in an original language requires necessarily and interpreation. Yours or mine. There is no way out of interpretation, and it is not the bugaboo that it is made out to be.



I agree with part of your above assessment of human language. Everyone has a different understanding for &quot;words&quot; based upon human experience. What I may know the word &quot;love&quot; to mean could be totally different than what you may call &quot;love.&quot; Therefore, I choose to rely on the Spirit within to lead me...not words on a printed page. I appreciate your &quot;take&quot; on things. The other poster didn't answer any of my questions...

[quote]Yet, Christianity has taught the eternal hell doctrine AFTER Jesus left this earth. The doctrine of an eternal hell is not in the new testament......

Can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the sole authority as the objective standard or it is not. And the Holy Spirit has told me there is an eternal hell.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Dee Dee Warren posted:


There is no magic in the language used but in the meanings conveyed and that meaning is just as valid no matter which language it is translated into.

But other languages, by definition (according to Sr. Rabassa, who actually states the Jewish view pretty well), cannot convey the rich layers of meaning & interpretation that the original Hebrew can!

Jesusreligion posted:


...as a Hebrew scholar, you will know the answer. Do or did Jewish people ever believe in an eternal hell?

Egad, you flatter me! Please stop calling me a "Hebrew scholar" or my head will swell worse than it already has!

See http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm , especially the section http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm#Gan . Normative, traditional (i.e. orthodox) Judaism most definitely believes in reward-and-punishment in the world-to-come (as we call it.)

Our prayer, the Mourner's Kaddish, is for the benefit of the soul of the deceased & is believed to ease the spiritual status of the deceased's soul as it goes through whatever trials & tribulations it may be subject to. We do believe in something akin to the RC notion of Purgatory & thus saying the Mourner's Kaddish would be similar to the RC idea of praying for the souls in Purgatory.

Look at http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/kadish.htm#Meaning .

The text there is the (5 clause) Mourner’s Kaddish in Hebrew, transliterated English & English (you can also listen to it in RealAudio).

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 07:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225073#post225073)
stillsmallvoice:

But other languages, by definition (according to Sr. Rabassa, who actually states the Jewish view pretty well), cannot convey the rich layers of meaning &amp; interpretation that the original Hebrew can!

I cannot believe that it is true, especially in every single text. You seem to be arguing that no part of the Hebrew parts can be translated. Any meaning can be adequately translated enough for understanding, it just may take a paragraph to say what one word in another language can say.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Dee Dee Warren posted:


Do you think that reading words makes meanings jump into your head through osmosis?

Of course not!


Even reading in an original language requires necessarily and interpreation.

Correct. But since many of our traditional interpretations are based on explaining textual ambiguities, or grammatical/syntactical anomalies, or particular choices of words and/or letters (i.e. why this and not that, etc.) in the Hebrew text (which, I feel that I have to keep stressing, is the God-given original), looking at the Tanakh in any other language, at a single stroke, wipes out all these traditional interpretations & robs the text of much of its meaning. (For our take on interpretation per se, see http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214415#post214415 ).

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Dee Dee Warren posted:


I cannot believe that it is true, especially in every single text.

We believe that it is.


You seem to be arguing that no part of the Hebrew parts can be translated.

Like what Sr. Rabassa said, there is no such thing as a translation per se, just the translator's particular take.


Any meaning can be adequately translated enough for understanding, it just may take a paragraph to say what one word in another language can say.

A paragraph? Try a whole page (or more), and it still would be neither enough nor adequate!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 08:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225085#post225085)
stillsmallvoice:

Like what Sr. Rabassa said, there is no such thing as a translation per se, just the translator's particular take.


A paragraph? Try a whole page (or more), and it still would be neither enough nor adequate!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

I expect that one could translate the sentence "Where's the bathroom?" in Hebrew perfectly into English---in under a page. And I expect that the same would be true of many other sentences....

This simple joke is just to affirm that there is such a thing as translation.
:cheers:

[EdJones]

According to the rules of debating if I am being challenged don't I choose the time, place and subject matter to be debated?

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225078#post225078)
Dee Dee Warren, replying to:


stillsmallvoice:

But other languages, by definition (according to Sr. Rabassa, who actually states the Jewish view pretty well), cannot convey the rich layers of meaning & interpretation that the original Hebrew can!

I cannot believe that it is true, especially in every single text. You seem to be arguing that no part of the Hebrew parts can be translated. Any meaning can be adequately translated enough for understanding, it just may take a paragraph to say what one word in another language can say.

SSV's view is based on a faulty view of language (not to mention being akin to Islam where the only true Quran is in Arabic). Modern linguistic studies have shown that any concept can be expressed in any language regardless of vocabulary. A language with a rich vocabulary can have a single word, but another language can still express that concept, just with more words.

[charis humin]

Today @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225096#post225096)
pereynol:



I expect that one could translate the sentence &quot;Where's the bathroom?&quot; in Hebrew perfectly into English---in under a page. And I expect that the same would be true of many other sentences....

This simple joke is just to affirm that there is such a thing as translation.
:cheers:

ha ha I would hope so for all those poor American tourists visiting Israel

:haha:

[charis humin]

this is slightly off-topic but somewhat related to what stillsmallvoice has introduced into the discussion and that is the methodology and philosophy of translation. I was wondering if any one knows of a survey or history that's been done on the movements in the Renaissance to translate the Scriptures into the languages of Western Europe or even a study on the re-introduction of Greek ("classic" and Hellenistic) into the West.

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 05:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225021#post225021)
Dee Dee Warren:



I am sorry but this is completely wrong-headed. Jesus was confronted with questions and challenges very often referred to the Scriptures for His responses. &quot;Have you not read?&quot; He NEVER said or asked &quot;What is the Holy Spirit telling you?&quot; Never, ever do the Scripture writers ask us to rely upon subjective experiences..... what were the Bereans counted noble for? Asking the Holy Spirit for a subjective experience daily to confirm Paul's world? No. They searched the Scriptures daily! A subjective experience can only come alongside the objective word, which is the only way that we can test the spirits.

Dee Dee:

Jesus used scriptures to "undo" those who were bound by scripture. Same as I will use against your argument now:

Mat 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Mat 13:14 "And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive..."

Jesus clearly was conveying spiritual truths that could only be understood with the spiritual ear...not the literal print of the page. Jesus continually quoted scripture, but gave a spiritual interpretation....religious leaders still today can't get it and want to crucify those who are led by the spirit...

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."

Notice the word "fear" used here; Jesus never proclaimed a doctrine of fear to gain followers.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

I choose not to be bound by law which is the printed letter of do's and do not's...I'll follow the Spirit of God over a book anyday. Your religion is dead if you cannot have a living relationship with a living God. People who are separated by distance convey thoughts by letter; are you distanced far away from your God?

John 4:23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.
John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Where does John say, "the hour is now come where the true followers of God will worship in church, with their King Jimmy and the Holy Spirit as back up!"

This ought to start a fire!!!! Take some whoopin'



:fight:

I'll be back later tonight to see my "hate mail." ;)

[EdJones]

Socrates-
Come off it! The Pilgrim Fathers took the Geneva Bible with them. Now that is truly Reformed, rather than Anglo-Catholic like the KJV which supported bishops and named the apostle Jacob "James" after their king, who persecuted the Pilgrims. In fact, the Geneva Bible was used by Shakespeare—and by the KJV translators themselves in their preface!

The Geneva Bible was one in a line, preceded by the Great Bible and followed by the Bishops Bible, marking the ascent to the King James Version. After the King James was finalized, revision was of a retrograde nature; English revision work started going downhill. It was going uphill with the Geneva, and then it started going downhill after the KJV.

The Geneva, like those English bibles preceding it and immediately following it (except the Jesuit Douey Rheims Bible), follows the traditional text underlying the King James Version. Historically, the church has always used the traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Version, not the Jesuit text now underlying the NIV and NASB. The Geneva Bible was written in about 1560, and was used by those people who were exiles from the persecution of Bloody Mary, queen of England.

The Geneva New Testament was written by a gentleman named William Whittingham. It had a number of good points. Each verse was separate. This would encourage memorization and was new for English bibles. It had many anti-Catholic footnotes.

Some of the areas in which it needed improvement include Psalms 12:7 where it followed the Septuagint and its denial of the preservation of scripture. In several places, the Geneva Bible uses the term “master” instead of “Lord.” In Hebrews 4:11, it had the term “disobedience”; it really should be “unbelief.” The KJV corrected all of these errors.

There are also some funny words in the Geneva Bible. It was called the Breeches Bible because in Genesis 3, it said that Adam and Eve wore breeches. The “abusers of themselves” (1 Cor. 6:9) were called “buggerers.” The King James was an improvement of the Geneva Bible, but the Geneva was definitely within the line of the traditional text bible.
[/quote]

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 07:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225073#post225073)
stillsmallvoice:

See http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm , especially the section http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm#Gan . Normative, traditional (i.e. orthodox) Judaism most definitely believes in reward-and-punishment in the world-to-come (as we call it.)

Our prayer, the Mourner's Kaddish, is for the benefit of the soul of the deceased &amp; is believed to ease the spiritual status of the deceased's soul as it goes through whatever trials &amp; tribulations it may be subject to. We do believe in something akin to the RC notion of Purgatory &amp; thus saying the Mourner's Kaddish would be similar to the RC idea of praying for the souls in Purgatory.

Look at http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/kadish.htm#Meaning .

The text there is the (5 clause) Mourner’s Kaddish in Hebrew, transliterated English &amp; English (you can also listen to it in RealAudio).

Be well!

ssv :hi:

Stillsmallvoice:

Thank you for the links to check out. I will do so, soon. But, do Jewish people believe that hell is eternal and cannot be undone? I believe there is a hell, but I believe it to be different than the traditional christian idea; yet, I see it as something that will be undone in all. I thought Jewish people believed similarly. I know plenty of people in hell right here and now on this earth!

Respectfully,
JesusReligion

:doh:

[bar Jonah]

Dee Dee Warren:
Can't have it both ways. Either the Bible is the sole authority as the objective standard or it is not. And the Holy Spirit has told me there is an eternal hell.
Wow, you too? The Shekinah of the Lord told me the same thing, too! :doh:



SSV, you said that since God gave His word in Hebrew, one must therefore read it in Hebrew and not in some other language.

I take it, then, that you also read biblical Aramaic, since part of the Tanakh is written not in Hebrew but in Aramaic?

[jesusreligion]

[QUOTE]Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225587#post225587)
RightIdea:


Wow, you too? The Shekinah of the Lord told me the same thing, too! :doh:
[QUOTE]

If the bible is the sole authority to you, women in your church better wear head coverings and dare not speak! Otherwise they are disobeying "God's word." (In your state of beliefs)


:haha:

[bar Jonah]

jesusreligion:
If the bible is the sole authority to you, women in your church better wear head coverings and dare not speak! Otherwise they are disobeying "God's word." (In your state of beliefs)

:haha:
Haven't you read a word I've said? The Bible is not the ultimate authority... God is. The Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and accountability from other biblically-based and spirit-filled believers ... all three of these things are tools God uses to put His authority in our lives and should work together for maximum effect.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225216#post225216)
EdJones:

According to the rules of debating if I am being challenged don't I choose the time, place and subject matter to be debated?

Actually that would be dueling, not debating. There is no point in challenging someone to a debate on a specific subject if they can change the subject.

However, feel free to pick the time, but the place will be here on TWeb, if you are up for it.

[nomad]

so, if i, a native english speaker, were to go and learn ancient hebrew and read the tanakh, how exactly is this different from reading a translation? the need for translation is still there, but at a different level.

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

It's 22:25 here in the Holy Land. Normally, I try to be in La-La Land by this hour (gotta get up at 05:00 to be at synagogue by 05:35 for the special pre-Yom Kippur penitential & confessional prayers that precede the regular morning prayers, which would otherwise be at 06:00) but I had to do some work from home (don't ask).

Lessee...

Pereynol posted:


I expect that one could translate the sentence "Where's the bathroom?" in Hebrew perfectly into English---in under a page.

Well DUH.

And I expect that the same would be true of many other sentences....[/quote]

Such as, "Where can I get a hamburger?", yes, certainly. Translating press releases & official statements (that's what I do) isn't all that challenging once you get the hang of it, get some experiences & become aware of nuances that go beyond dictionary definitions. Ever try translating literature, especially poetry? It is so much a different league that it's a different world. I've done it a little. It is agonizingly difficult. Translating sacred literature is a different universe altogether & is considerably more difficult than "Where's the bathroom?"

Dee Dee Warren posted:


You seem to be arguing that no part of the Hebrew parts can be translated.

So that all the rich meanings, interpretations & nuances can be duplicated, yes that's what I'm arguing. Like I said, even the best "translation" is only a study aid.


Any meaning can be adequately translated enough for understanding,

So as to achieve perfect duplication & overlap? No, we believe that it cannot.

Socrates posted:


SSV's view is based on a faulty view of language...

Not that we're aware of. We Jews have been dealing with these very issues long before the modern art (it's not a science) of linguistics was born.


...(not to mention being akin to Islam where the only true Quran is in Arabic).

What's wrong with this? Jews & Muslims see eye-to-eye on this issue (whereas Christianity & the Bahai faith see eye-to-eye).


Modern linguistic studies have shown that any concept can be expressed in any language regardless of vocabulary. A language with a rich vocabulary can have a single word, but another language can still express that concept, just with more words.

I don't agree with sentence #1. If we accept that sentence #2 is correct (I don't), "just...more words," can hardly capture the elegance, the poetic beauty & literary power (all of which add to, and are part of, the meaning) of the original. There is no philosopher's stone for linguistics which will enable us to automatically transform one language into another.

Dee Dee, my Aramaic is nowhere near as good as it should be. :dunce:

Be well!

Good night!

ssv :zzz:

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225661#post225661)
RightIdea:


Haven't you read a word I've said? The Bible is not the ultimate authority... God is. The Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and accountability from other biblically-based and spirit-filled believers ... all three of these things are tools God uses to put His authority in our lives and should work together for maximum effect.

Agreed that God is the ultimate authority. Still, I do not see Jesus saying "follow the bible" as part of his message. ( I say this knowing that "the bible" as we consider it today was not in existence, then) Agreed that God can use fellowship with other believers and scriptures as tools for speaking and leading us; but God can use anything as a tool to speak - didn't Balaam's ass speak? Didn't a Roman soldier have more wisdom than most of Israel? Jesus' message was "Follow me." He stated that excessively in the gospels. "Follow me" means look at His life and walk the same way; if to you following Jesus in your heart is what he means in that statement, then again we are speaking of being led by the Holy Spirit from within.

John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things..."

ALL THINGS...hmmm...interesting...wait a minute. I better be afraid to be spiritually led because I might get lost...bring me a book and a church and people to help me see the light! Moses, will you speak to God for me and tell me what he says? You go up the mountain for me...because we're afraid!!!!

Did Jesus say the spirit-filled, bible believing christian in conjunction with the local church (and the Holy Spirit) will lead you?

The Holy Spirit will teach you ALL Things...why can't God be trusted to lead me by His Spirit and His Spirit alone?

:whip:

[Thomas2003]

Come off it! The Pilgrim Fathers took the Geneva Bible with them. Now that is truly Reformed, rather than Anglo-Catholic like the KJV which supported bishops and named the apostle Jacob "James" after their king, who persecuted the Pilgrims. In fact, the Geneva Bible was used by Shakespeare—and by the KJV translators themselves in their preface!

So, what is the point? The Authorized Version Committee used every known translation - French as well, the old Latin too. Why are you apparently hostile to the Scriptures?

It is, after all, "Translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised, by his majesty's special command" There is coventantal continuity there - it is a King's copy of the Holy Scriptures, a king that codified God's law in the civil order. It is significant as its fruit shows through history.

30 years later the Westminster Divines entered the Solemn League and Covenant - and although it is men's covenant, there is covenantal continuity there coupled with this particular English version of the Holy Scriptures - this continuity remained in the United States until 1947. As we only cast off King George, not the Law - every state in our Country delineates it's law originating with King James 1. Such as Indiana in IC 1-1-2-1(4). The Authorized Version is the standard for Life, for Law and for Justice - whatever wars against it wars against our peace and liberty.

For example, the first test of our "First Amendment" in 1878 was a polygamy case from a mormon out in the Utah Territory - the Supreme Court went to straight back to the common law of King James 1. This codification of Holy Scripture into the common law is of paramount importance.

After our Supreme Court broke covenant, however, all hell has broken loose in our society. But we can say, with certainty, that this liberal attack upon our peace and good order began 70 years before in England and didn't officially come to our shores until 1901 with the ASV as a real leaven that could undo us - because it has attacked the soul of our people and their belief in God. Ever since a "new american standard" has been diligently sought after - a standard that denies God as a matter of law in its civil expression and is supposed to be more enlightening in its eccliastical by telling us we can't be sure what God said.

Everybody is carrying around all these Bibles but nobody is believing it. If they believed it they would obey it - they presume it's full of errors as our Universities have taught for a century now, and as everyone of them testifies in its footnotes.

All built upon the presupposition that the Holy Scripture is a fable and Moses is a myth, hence the New Testament is a conflate of mythology about a dead guy named Jesus. If you reject the Byzantine text and the Protestant Bible coming out of that - you reject the Reformation - you really don't have anything to stand upon. The three pillars of Westcott and Hort have fallen and necessarily the N/U text.

The desire to gather us all back into "Rome Sweet Home" has failed. In my family, we "prefer" and "use" the Authorized Version - but more importantly we believe it.

I came to this subject in 1978 when a friend gave me an NIV, I was informed this was "much easier to understand." Didn't tell me they switched texts and some 30,000 readings were removed. It wasn't long, a few months before I started doubting my faith, I'd have nightmares and wake up in cold sweats with wonderings about my faith. It's very simple - from childhood the Bible told me Jesus was God and that my faith was secure - this new one didn't. I didn't even realize it, until one day I was reading Luke 2:33 and a light turned on in my head and I began checking things out - all of a sudden Joseph became Jesus' father. There is a difference in man's statements about their relationship and the Holy Spirit's testimony. Somebody did a bait and switch on me!

You can't recognize the NIV of today as compared to my 1978 version - it's two different books. But if you hold to the conflate theory - there is no reason to put back in all of these Authorized Version readings. If you wish to hold to the N/U text and its theory - fine, but what basis do you belittle my faith? If Moses is a myth, which you must necessarily hold - then Jesus is a myth too. If the Old Testament isn't the word of God, then the New Testament isn't either and all of us are left like this Jesusreligion fellow - a hollow faith built upon no evidence.

Sincerely,

Thomas

[Thomas2003]

09-27-2003 @ 08:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223274#post223274)
EdJones:

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT Or the Scholarship Only Cult. (you know who you are)

1. There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God.

2. Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled.

3. Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

5. However, this series of writings was LOST, and the God Who inspired them was UNABLE TO PRESERVE THEIR CONTENT through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word &quot;CHRISTIAN&quot; originated (Acts 11:26).

6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called HIS SON OUT of Egypt (Mat. 2), JACOB OUT of Egypt (Gen. 49), ISRAEL OUT of Egypt (Exod. 15), and JOSEPH'S BONES OUT of Egypt (Exod. 13).

7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate - though, of course, there is NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY FOR DETERMINING TRUTH AND ERROR: it is a matter of &quot;preference&quot; - are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are &quot;almost the originals,&quot; although NOT QUITE.

8. The most INACCURATE TRANSLATIONS were those that brought about the GERMAN REFORMATION (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide MISSIONARY MOVEMENT of the English speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

9. But we can &quot;tolerate&quot; these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY THAT ANYONE CAN READ, TEACH, PREACH, OR HANDLE, the whole thing is a matter of &quot;PREFERENCE.&quot; You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what WE prefer: let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

This is the creed of the Alexandrian/Scholarship Only Cult.


Is this Dr. Ruckman's?

Cordially,


Thomas

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 05:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225834#post225834)
Thomas2003:

If the Old Testament isn't the word of God, then the New Testament isn't either and all of us are left like this Jesusreligion fellow - a hollow faith built upon no evidence.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Excuse me, Thomas...my faith isn't hollow. Do I need the evidence of a printed page or the living evidence of a relationship with God by His spirit? Nice suckerpunch from ya'...thanks.

By the way, you haven't a clue as to who I am or my experiences. I suggest you know that before you give a diagnosis of me as "hollow."
:doh:

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=225661#post225661)
RightIdea:


Haven't you read a word I've said? The Bible is not the ultimate authority... God is. The Bible, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and accountability from other biblically-based and spirit-filled believers ... all three of these things are tools God uses to put His authority in our lives and should work together for maximum effect.

And you haven't heard what I am stating to you:
In your above statement the bible + bible followers + the holy spirit= your leading.
(bible + bible +holy spirit) (bible based twice)

Again, how about Holy Spirit being the leader...if the Spirit of God chooses to use a book or another to teach me, then I am o.k. with that. I am not o.k. with men's formulas...(let me slow down so you can get this) such as bible + bible + holy spirit = your leading. Are we clear, now?




:duh:

[bar Jonah]

jesusreligion:

And you haven't heard what I am stating to you:
In your above statement the bible + bible followers + the holy spirit= your leading.
(bible + bible +holy spirit) (bible based twice)

Again, how about Holy Spirit being the leader...if the Spirit of God chooses to use a book or another to teach me, then I am o.k. with that. I am not o.k. with men's formulas...(let me slow down so you can get this) such as bible + bible + holy spirit = your leading. Are we clear, now?
But... JesusReligion...

The Holy Spirit IS leading me to use the above foundation in my life, and is telling me that you're wrong.

So how do you account for this?

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 08:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226012#post226012)
RightIdea:


But... JesusReligion...

The Holy Spirit IS leading me to use the above foundation in my life, and is telling me that you're wrong.

So how do you account for this?

Now, you have the "Right Idea," in part. If the holy spirit is telling you to go to a certain church building; have fellowship with believers there; and study the bible, then that is what I suggest you do! Great for you!

I was led that same path from 1986 through 1997 until one day I was told in prayer to leave the church we attended. My wife and I did not wish to leave, but I felt strongly the Lord was speaking this to me for months. I was "tricked" (by the Holy Spirit). Tricked into seeing what I am able to see so clearly now; able to see ONLY after I was removed from within man's religious system and God began to remove manmade religious ideas from my mind. It has been a tremendous journey; one which I would not trade for the world.

All I can say is, I know where you are, as I have been there before. Truly, I have been. I was an elder, preacher and teacher (I studied the bible everyday for 12-13 years); all I ever wanted was God and Truth (which are one and the same, by the way). Do those who have posted comments to me think they are asking me questions I haven't thought of before? I had a very hard time with what the Holy Spirit was telling me compared with what I could "prove" with my bible (or so I thought I could prove - I was a very good lawyer with the law in my hand, by the way!) It took years for the "undoing" (of wrong doctrines) to happen, as it took years for me to have become "bible-bound" in the first place.

Certainly, I want you to be where God wants you to be. I have no hidden agendas. I believe in God and Christ as do you; I just see Jesus' message a bit different; and to me, much more freeing. Why do I come against traditional beliefs? Because they are based upon fear, condemnation and guilt. They are not truth with those elements as the driving force behind them.

Am I wrong where I am at? Absolutely, not! You, my friend have been conditioned through fear (as I had been) and confuse it with the Spirit's leading. Do you know what the opposite of Love is? Most say, "hate." They are wrong. It is "Fear." God is Love. God is not fear. If I attack one simple core doctrine of your beliefs, you will have to defend it to the bitter end. Why? Because if that doctrine I attack is incorrect, then the rest of your current beliefs will tumble down like a house of cards.

Do you know what christian doctrine you currently believe that if attacked; will threaten your whole religion if you find you are wrong?


:shocked:

[nomad]

if you're thinking what i think you're thinking, then yes, you have wandered way outside orthodoxy, and are a classic case of why we need the bible as an anchor.

[Pilgrim]

I have prayed hard about this Jesus Religion and I feel the Holy Spirit leading me to rebuke you and chastise you for engaging in such a self indulgent and egocentric faith.

The Holy Spirit is telling me right now that you have mis understood the message of God and that you need to seek out the fellowship of believers to help you in your journey and that you need to seek out scripture for it is inspired and profitable for all teaching.

[John Reece]

Today @ 03:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226075#post226075)
jesusreligion:

Now, you have the “Right Idea” in part. If the Holy Spirit is telling you to go to a certain church building; have fellowship with believers there; and study the bible, then that is what I suggest you do! Great for you!

I was led that same path from 1986 through 1997 until one day I was told in prayer to leave the church we attended. My wife and I did not wish to leave, but I felt strongly the Lord was speaking this to me for months. I was “tricked” (by the Holy Spirit). Tricked into seeing what I am able to see so clearly now; able to see ONLY after I was removed from within man's religious system and God began to remove manmade religious ideas from my mind. It has been a tremendous journey; one which I would not trade for the world.

All I can say is, I know where you are, as I have been there before. Truly, I have been. I was an elder, preacher and teacher (I studied the bible everyday for 12-13 years); all I ever wanted was God and Truth (which are one and the same, by the way). Do those who have posted comments to me think they are asking me questions I haven't thought of before? I had a very hard time with what the Holy Spirit was telling me compared with what I could “prove”; with my bible (or so I thought I could prove - I was a very good lawyer with the law in my hand, by the way!) It took years for the “undoing”; (of wrong doctrines) to happen, as it took years for me to have become “bible-bound”; in the first place.

Certainly, I want you to be where God wants you to be. I have no hidden agendas. I believe in God and Christ as do you; I just see Jesus' message a bit different; and to me, much more freeing. Why do I come against traditional beliefs? Because they are based upon fear, condemnation and guilt. They are not truth with those elements as the driving force behind them.

Am I wrong where I am at? Absolutely, not! You, my friend, have been conditioned through fear (as I had been) and confuse it with the Spirit's leading. Do you know what the opposite of Love is? Most say, "hate"; They are wrong. It is "Fear"; God is Love. God is not fear. If I attack one simple core doctrine of your beliefs, you will have to defend it to the bitter end. Why? Because if that doctrine I attack is incorrect, then the rest of your current beliefs will tumble down like a house of cards.

Do you know what Christian doctrine you currently believe that if attacked; will threaten your whole religion if you find you are wrong?

:shocked:

I responded to jesusreligion with a critical post, which I deleted and sent to him via PM.

I was quite satisfied with his response.

I would be interested to hear more from him.

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=226893#post226893)
nomad:

if you're thinking what i think you're thinking, then yes, you have wandered way outside orthodoxy, and are a classic case of why we need the bible as an anchor.

No, I am a classic case of why you would want to keep people bound by bible...to keep them in tradition and orthodoxy...keep them under control of the church and its' elders...keep them in fear...and keep them paying tithes to support your system of religion. God forbid His Spirit ever be allowed to speak to somebody outside of doctrine and religion...

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 03:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227168#post227168)
Pilgrim:

I have prayed hard about this Jesus Religion and I feel the Holy Spirit leading me to rebuke you and chastise you for engaging in such a self indulgent and egocentric faith.

The Holy Spirit is telling me right now that you have mis understood the message of God and that you need to seek out the fellowship of believers to help you in your journey and that you need to seek out scripture for it is inspired and profitable for all teaching.


I have never sought an "egocentric faith." You do not understand me or where I have come from. I have a lengthy bible background ( for your reference only). Scripture is profitable...much of it is inspired...however, I simply think I hear a greater message from God than I had formerly believed. Here is a link with my background info on it in short. Enjoy.

http://www.jesusreligion.com/LCstory.html

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227516#post227516)
jesusreligion:




I have never sought an &quot;egocentric faith.&quot; You do not understand me or where I have come from. I have a lengthy bible background ( for your reference only). Scripture is profitable...much of it is inspired...however, I simply think I hear a greater message from God than I had formerly believed. Here is a link with my background info on it in short. Enjoy.

http://www.jesusreligion.com/LCstory.html

Your background information and bio is not germain, all that matters, and you have admitted this, is the instruction of God through the Holy Spirit. And that is what I am going on, my first post stands.

[jesusreligion]

Thank you for the kind words.

Let me say, for those who are interested, I love God and mankind. I wish no ill will, nor do I want to "blaspheme" God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or any person. I am just bored with typical patent answers and have been for some time, especially when I am continually looking for more of what God has for me and mankind. The system of religious tradition became more visibly clear to me as the wall blocking those truths from my grasp.

Consider that the (John's Revelation I speak of) Revelation of Jesus Christ is just that; the revealing of christ in you and the tribulation caused by religion and the removal of the same from within you. It is not going to occur outwardly. It occurs inwardly. The root of religion by the way: fear

Two paths: narrow way and a broad way. The broad way is to follow outwardly; the narrow way is to be led by God's spirit inwardly. That inward leading will undo the things of fear and religion, bringing peace and uncovering the truth (or light) which is within all...that light of Christ shines forth and removes the darkness (or lack of understanding) within the deep part of us all.

Gen 1:2 "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

[nomad]

No, I am a classic case of why you would want to keep people bound by bible...to keep them in tradition and orthodoxy...keep them under control of the church and its' elders...keep them in fear...and keep them paying tithes to support your system of religion. God forbid His Spirit ever be allowed to speak to somebody outside of doctrine and religion...

whoa there, lots of loaded words! anyways that's not what i meant, and the fact that you automatically read all that into my reply worries me. the 'one core doctrine' i know of (ok, two) are that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for my sins so that I could be with God. your argument acted like you would like to tear this down. most other beliefs center around who God is and the mechanics of this process, but this is the core. if this is not the case, if you DO believe in Jesus (which yeah, i see above you indicated you do, i think?) but believe differently on other things, even if you wouldn't agree with the nicene creed, i will agree my judgment was a bit premature.

if not... then, not out of judgment, but out of concern, i tell you that you have walked away from the faith. be careful about letting subjective experiences, especially vague spiritual 'feeling' type experiences, lead you away. that is why we have an anchor, and multiple witnesses of God - the written word, his spoken word directly to us at times, and the evidence of the created universe.

note that no one has said God has not spoken outside the bible. but that what God says outside the bible will not contradict this anchor of our faith. which could be a whole thread in itself.

anyways, i apologize for rushing to judgment. especially if the above is not what you meant.

edit: just saw your other response to john. i understand where you are coming from, it makes some sense. do not understand your stated platform, since religion has not put any barriers on me (yet, but i am not a pastor), and i must admit that when i have seen this same attitude in others, it has been misguided, but so far it looks like you are still within the faith, confessing Jesus.

[Pilgrim]

I do hear what you are saying Jesus and of course I was totally exagerating and being a bit sarcastic. But I can't help but note that your attempt to get past the pat answers, as you call them, has lead to the most common response of all..."it's me and the Holy Spirit alone."

To me it seems abundantly clear that genuine faith has always existed in the context of community. God, Scripture, community working together to produce in us sanctification if you will.

To say that you go it alone is to deny the very model that God has set up for us, to throw away the support and foundation that God has set up. It seems to me that to simply walk away and say I have the answers can be dangerous. We need acountability because we do suffer the noetic effects of sin and can be easily decieved.

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 08:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227584#post227584)
Pilgrim:

I do hear what you are saying Jesus and of course I was totally exagerating and being a bit sarcastic. But I can't help but note that your attempt to get past the pat answers, as you call them, has lead to the most common response of all...&quot;it's me and the Holy Spirit alone.&quot;

To me it seems abundantly clear that genuine faith has always existed in the context of community. God, Scripture, community working together to produce in us sanctification if you will.

To say that you go it alone is to deny the very model that God has set up for us, to throw away the support and foundation that God has set up. It seems to me that to simply walk away and say I have the answers can be dangerous. We need acountability because we do suffer the noetic effects of sin and can be easily decieved.

Your "checks & balances" again are based upon fear. If that fear were gone, then what would that mean for you and your current beliefs regarding God and who you are?

Consider this passage (and I use bible for you):

Luke 18:26 And those who heard it said, "Who then can be saved?"
Luke 18:27 But He said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Is the salvation of all impossible to you in your current beliefs? What is his answer to you? If it is impossible with you, I am going to wager it is possible with God.

Mark 10:27 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."



:whip:

[jesusreligion]

Guys (& Gals?), I love ya' all. I cannot resist going after tradition. If I had a nickel for every time I heard some of these traditional responses, I could retire. Please excuse me for gettin' frisky in my posts. Truly, I do not want to tear anyone down, but I do want to make you think. I write a lot of questions because the purpose of questions is to make one think...

Now, I respond to Nomad:

Yeah, those were loaded words I came back to you with, but I just couldn't resist such an easy jab! lol :poke:

You said, "your argument acted like you would like to tear this down." If God's not in it, then I want it torn down. Absolutely. However, God reached me through the very same religious system and experience, then began to tear it out of me.

By the way, my "faith" in God is not gone at all; yea, it is stronger than ever. How? I have seen so much through my former religious experiences (and charismatic experiences) and through the tearing down of Babylon in me! Yeeoowww, I have felt the fire in my life and it ain't pretty! Don't worry about offending me, Nomad.

You know, the scriptures speak quite a bit about "the mysteries of the kingdom." I believe they can be sought and found. Do you know what happens when one finds those pearls?

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 07:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227538#post227538)
Pilgrim:



Your background information and bio is not germain, all that matters, and you have admitted this, is the instruction of God through the Holy Spirit. And that is what I am going on, my first post stands.

Then, Pilgrim ( feel like John Wayne here), my being led by the spirit of God does not make me "egocentric." The bible & church background was for those who think I have not been there before this...

:thumb:

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 10:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227692#post227692)
jesusreligion:



Your &quot;checks &amp; balances&quot; again are based upon fear. If that fear were gone, then what would that mean for you and your current beliefs regarding God and who you are?

Consider this passage (and I use bible for you):

Luke 18:26 And those who heard it said, &quot;Who then can be saved?&quot;
Luke 18:27 But He said, &quot;The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.&quot;

Is the salvation of all impossible to you in your current beliefs? What is his answer to you? If it is impossible with you, I am going to wager it is possible with God.

Mark 10:27 But Jesus looked at them and said, &quot;With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.&quot;



:whip:

A. I am not afraid. In fact, I am exactly the opposite. You have engaged in the classoc fallacy of the excluded middle. There are, after all, more than one reason why a person may act or believe in certain ways. My God is one of mercy and love so I have no need of fear. Which brings me to
B. Yes, in my current beliefs the salvation of all is possible. But a more mature outlook might look beyond such questions. I don't believe or disbelieve because I think I or any one else, may or may not be saved. I believe and I worship God because God is God and worthy of such. I'll leave salvation up to God because that is God's job not mine.

[jesusreligion]

Yesterday @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=227738#post227738)
Pilgrim:



A. I am not afraid. In fact, I am exactly the opposite. You have engaged in the classoc fallacy of the excluded middle. There are, after all, more than one reason why a person may act or believe in certain ways. My God is one of mercy and love so I have no need of fear. Which brings me to
B. Yes, in my current beliefs the salvation of all is possible. But a more mature outlook might look beyond such questions. I don't believe or disbelieve because I think I or any one else, may or may not be saved. I believe and I worship God because God is God and worthy of such. I'll leave salvation up to God because that is God's job not mine.


A) I would bet you are not afraid because you believe you are obeying God and not in danger of judgement. If that is the case, then you are still under fear through law. How about no fear because God will not destroy you eternally? God is either a God of mercy, forgiveness and love or he is one of murder, punishment and torment. He cannot be both. Jesus showed us "love" as you speak. I believe He is the God of Love.

B) You say, "Yes, in my current beliefs the salvation of all is possible. But a more mature outlook might look beyond such questions." Do you believe God can save all or do you believe God WILL save all. Big difference. If your beliefs are more mature and salvation is of no concern, then you rely on God to save all and know that He WILL do it. Otherwise, you ask the same question, "Who then can be saved?" and say, "I'll just leave that up to God; but you better be prepared so you don't go to eternal hell."

In your mind, how many will be saved? 10% 20% 30% 50% 60%90%???
Ever thought of that? Pick a number, that's all I ask. I would like to know your best guess if you would be so kind as to indulge me.

[Pilgrim]

A. You'ld lose your bet. I am not afraid not because of what I think my judgement will be but because God is good. Whatever God's judgement of may may be, it will be the good and right one. I think you are creating a false dillema and maybe even throwing in a strawman by confusing what might be justice with cruelty or evil or murder. I think God can be all things. I think that we have a finite understanding of what Good and Evil are and so we confuse what feels good and feels bad to us with what is actually good and bad. That being the case if we percieve God doing something that feels or seems bad to us we say, "that's not right, that can not be God." In reality we are finite and don't understand the true nature of all that. God is good and that should be our trust. What you have done is superimposed onto God your own definition of what Good and Bad are based on what feels good or painful to you. In other words, God can both love and punish at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive, as any parent will tell you.

B. I know that God can, I don't know if God will. It's not my place to tell God which should happen or even to second guess what God may do. My trust is not in that God will or will not save me or all of creation but rather my trust is that whatever God does, it is Good, because God is Good. That is the foundational thought of reformed faith and Calvinism in particular. And when we arrive in heaven, I will not turn away from God because I find that my theology was wrong, or because I am mad God didn't or did save certain people. In that moment I will understand God's goodness and the reasons behind God's actions. So my trust is not in how God wil or will not save, it is in God's goodness.

[jesusreligion]

I truly liked your reply. :yes:

You also stated, "I think that we have a finite understanding of what Good and Evil are and so we confuse what feels good and feels bad to us with what is actually good and bad. That being the case if we percieve God doing something that feels or seems bad to us we say, "that's not right, that can not be God." In reality we are finite and don't understand the true nature of all that. God is good and that should be our trust."

I agree God is good. Looking at the good & evil issue, I believe it is the two trees in the garden; good & evil being a duality which I think is the big problem with mankind. Can truth have an opposite? Really, think about it. If truth is eternal, then is any thing contrary to truth even real in the grandest of scales? Just a thought for ya'...and that thought could take us down a whole different road.

Anyone care to take that guess as to the percentage of mankind who will be saved from my previous post?

[TedO]

Why is it necessary to be saved from your previous post? It wasn't that bad.

[Pilgrim]

:haha: Ted.

That is an interesting thought J.R. Dualism has historically been rejected by orthodox doctrine. It's not an either or with an outcome uncertain that is for sure. Satan is not the opposite and equal of God and evil is not the oppisite and equal of good as far as I can tell.

If I think about it too hard I start to swerve in to heresy particularly universalism which I think, reasonably is not tenable because I think that our choices here on earth do matter.

Double predetination means that no matter how faithful we are we may not be able to get Heaven. The invalidates what we do here and I don't think that is what God wants. Interestingly enough Universalism presents the same problem in that no matter how unfaithful we are, we will never recieve God's reprimand there by making our choice in the same way un important. Again, I don't think that is what God wants. But I guess soon enough we'll find out eh?

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 01:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=228521#post228521)
TedO:

Why is it necessary to be saved from your previous post? It wasn't that bad.

LOL You win! That WAS a pretty bad sentence I did at lunchtime (in a hurry). It did make me look bad!
:dunce:

[jesusreligion]

Today @ 01:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=228604#post228604)
Pilgrim:

:haha: Ted.

That is an interesting thought J.R. Dualism has historically been rejected by orthodox doctrine. It's not an either or with an outcome uncertain that is for sure. Satan is not the opposite and equal of God and evil is not the oppisite and equal of good as far as I can tell.

If I think about it too hard I start to swerve in to heresy particularly universalism which I think, reasonably is not tenable because I think that our choices here on earth do matter.

Double predetination means that no matter how faithful we are we may not be able to get Heaven. The invalidates what we do here and I don't think that is what God wants. Interestingly enough Universalism presents the same problem in that no matter how unfaithful we are, we will never recieve God's reprimand there by making our choice in the same way un important. Again, I don't think that is what God wants. But I guess soon enough we'll find out eh?

I think that our choices here do matter. To me it is easily seen that the prison one creates through what one chooses to believe and do, is a real self-imposed trap. Example: Attack another and create guilt within yourself. Very simple, but true. Fear, guilt and condemnation are not undone easily without the spirit of truth. The mind God has given us is powerful, yet we tend to use it to "mis-create," at times. Yes, our choices matter - they can bring peace or torment.

It's kinda' like this:
:metro:

[EdJones]

09-27-2003 @ 02:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=223274#post223274)
EdJones:

THE CREED OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT Or the Scholarship Only Cult. (you know who you are)

1. There is NO FINAL AUTHORITY but God.

2. Since God is a SPIRIT, there is NO FINAL AUTHORITY that can be seen, heard, read, felt or handled.

3. Since all books are MATERIAL, there is NO BOOK ON THIS EARTH THAT IS THE FINAL AND ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes TRUTH and what constitutes ERROR.

4. There WAS a series of writings one time which, IF they had all been put into a BOOK as soon as they were written the first time, WOULD HAVE constituted an infallible and final authority by which to judge truth and error.

5. However, this series of writings was LOST, and the God Who inspired them was UNABLE TO PRESERVE THEIR CONTENT through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch (Syria), where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word &quot;CHRISTIAN&quot; originated (Acts 11:26).

6. So, God chose to ALMOST preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called HIS SON OUT of Egypt (Mat. 2), JACOB OUT of Egypt (Gen. 49), ISRAEL OUT of Egypt (Exod. 15), and JOSEPH'S BONES OUT of Egypt (Exod. 13).

7. So, there are two streams of Bibles: the most accurate - though, of course, there is NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY FOR DETERMINING TRUTH AND ERROR: it is a matter of &quot;preference&quot; - are the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, Egypt, which are &quot;almost the originals,&quot; although NOT QUITE.

8. The most INACCURATE TRANSLATIONS were those that brought about the GERMAN REFORMATION (Luther, Zwingli, Boehler, Zinzendorf, Spener, etc.) and the worldwide MISSIONARY MOVEMENT of the English speaking people: the Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, Whitfield, Wesley, and Chapman used.

9. But we can &quot;tolerate&quot; these if those who believe in them will tolerate US. After all, since THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY THAT ANYONE CAN READ, TEACH, PREACH, OR HANDLE, the whole thing is a matter of &quot;PREFERENCE.&quot; You may prefer what you prefer, and we will prefer what WE prefer: let us live in peace, and if we cannot agree on anything or everything, let us all agree on one thing: THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH.

This is the creed of the Alexandrian/Scholarship Only Cult.




Is this Dr. Ruckman's?Cordially,


Thomas

No, Dr. Ruckman is a Bible Believer not a member of the ALEXANDRIAN Or the Scholarship Only Cult.

[charis humin]

Scholarship Only Cult :haha:

what a hoot!

[Pilgrim]

Hey Ed, what about that debate with Jaltus?

[EdJones]

I'll think about it.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 04:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230460#post230460)
EdJones:
Debate his salvation?
I'll think about it.

You'd lose....


:stars:

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 04:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230460#post230460)
EdJones:

I'll think about it.

Now you're playing the part of God are you? nice, way to violate the sum of the law in one swift post!

But what was that in the Bible, something about being prepared, what was it, in season and out...I guess you're not. Just as long as we know it I guess.


:duh:

[bar Jonah]

EdJones:
No, Dr. Ruckman is a Bible Believer not a member of the ALEXANDRIAN Or the Scholarship Only Cult.
A "Bible Believer" just like me? You mean he also believes that God doesn't know everything about the future, and that Peter and Paul taught two distinctly different gospels? :riwink:

[EdJones]

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.

[bar Jonah]

EdJones:
The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.
Says who? So you just pick and choose the seven best Bibles, and use them to fit your "purified seven times" presupposition, and throw out anything that doesn't fit? Textbook case of circular logic.

"There are seven in the purification line. But shoot, we have a dozen Bibles here. Well, obviously only seven of them are good. So pick the seven best ones, throw ou the rest, and THAT'S the 'purification line' of Bibles." :ahem:

All of which still leaves out the fact that you only read part of the 1611 translation, and throw out all the parts of that Bible that you don't like. As has been thrown in your lap again and again, but you completely ignore it.

[EdJones]

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)


The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."


"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

[bar Jonah]

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Whoa, hang on, guys.

First, it doesn't say God's words "will be..." It says God's words "ARE..."

Present tense.

Second, it doesn't say God's words are purified seven times. It says God's words are like "silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Just as pure as silver purified seven times, this is how pure God's words are. Extra-extra-purified silver. It is the silver that's purified seven times, not God's words.

Yet another example of people reading into scripture what they expect to see, rather than letting it say what it really says.

[Socrates]

The KJV-1611 was basically a revision of the Bishop's Bible, and still contained the Apocrypha together with a Scripture-reading guide and cross-references to the Apocrypha. The KJV with which most people are familiar is Benjamin Blayney's 1769 revision. So does this count as #8. See also The REAL 1611 King James Version (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/).

Frankly that argument trying to read seven Bible versions into that passage smacks of Nostradamusesque numerology. And this is aside from the Anglophonic chauvinism that considers only English translations and ignores French, German, etc. It is the height of fantasy to assert that Psalms was prophesying about English.

[bar Jonah]

Cover yourself up, man! Your eisegesis is showing! :rieek:

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230999#post230999)
RightIdea:

Psalm 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Whoa, hang on, guys.

First, it doesn't say God's words “will be...” It says God's words “ARE...”

Present tense.

Second, it doesn't say God's words are purified seven times. It says God's words are like “silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

Just as pure as silver purified seven times, this is how pure God's words are. Extra-extra-purified silver. It is the silver that's purified seven times, not God's words.

Yet another example of people reading into scripture what they expect to see, rather than letting it say what it really says.

Even worse, Ed borders on blasphemy to claim that God's words need purification. :eww:

[bar Jonah]

Socrates:
Even worse, Ed borders on blasphemy to claim that God's words need purification. :eww:
EXACTLY!

God's word will be perfectly preserved.... but it also has to be purified seven times??? :huh: That makes not the least bit of sense ... directly self-contradictory!

The seven-times purification is for the SILVER! Demonstrating how very pure God's words are, already.

[EdJones]

THE TRUTH IS that the vast majority of new Bible versions depends mainly for its credibility upon the character and integrity of two corrupt ancient Greek manuscripts; Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

[bar Jonah]

Tell us, Ed... what exactly about God's words were impure?

:hrm:

[bar Jonah]

EdJones:
THE TRUTH IS that the vast majority of new Bible versions depends mainly for its credibility upon the character and integrity of two corrupt ancient Greek manuscripts; Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Off topic. We're talking about the veracity and alleged perfection of the 1611 Authorized Version.

[EdJones]

Why do you think the most ancient manuscripts are the best?

[bar Jonah]

Ed, you are tap dancing like Fred Astaire. Are you truly incapable of answering the points we've made?

If so, just admit to it and THEN we'll move on to your new point. Just concede that you have no explanation or answer for the points we've already made. :ponder:

[Jaltus]

Ed Jones is a coward.

I have officially challenged him to a debte on KJVO two times alone IN THIS THREAD. He has yet to accept or reject the offer.

Not only that, but he is questioning my salvation not based on who my savior is, but based on what translation of the Bible I use!

Let me ask this: Was Paul saved? He did not even use the New Testament for goodness sake!

[bar Jonah]

Exactly right, again, Brer Jaltus. No Christian absolutely needs a Bible at all. Is it an incredibly important component of a healthy relationship with God? Absolutely. But it is it absolutely necessary? No. A person can be saved and never read one page of scripture.

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=231016#post231016)
RightIdea:


EdJones:
THE TRUTH IS that the vast majority of new Bible versions depends mainly for its credibility upon the character and integrity of two corrupt ancient Greek manuscripts; Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Off topic. We're talking about the veracity and alleged perfection of the 1611 Authorized Version.

Which entails that Ed must believe in the veracity of the Apocrypha. However, while Ed whinges about a few words and verses "left out" of the modern versions, he evidently has no problem using the 1769 revision of the KJV that has removed whole books.

[bar Jonah]

:highfive:

(Btw, Soc, you need a personal smiley!!!)

[Pilgrim]

I love that word "whinges." Ed, come on man, step up to the plate, remember, Christ died to take away your sins, not your mind.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=231178#post231178)
RightIdea:

:highfive:

(Btw, Soc, you need a personal smiley!!!)

Maybe Boom might be generous and give me one :bunny:

[EdJones]

The English language was at the height of its grammatical accuracy during the Elizabethan period. The KJV is the most accurate English translation on the market today.

[charis humin]

The English language was at the height of its grammatical accuracy during the Elizabethan period

accurate today and none so English are language this not understand nobody!!!



sorry couldn't resist...

[Socrates]

Today @ 05:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232481#post232481)
EdJones:

The English language was at the height of its grammatical accuracy during the Elizabethan period. The KJV is the most accurate English translation on the market today.

The Greek language was at the height of its grammatical accuracy during the Classical period about four centuries BC. Yet the Holy Spirit inspired the NT in Koin&egrave; Greek of the marketplace so that the ordinary people of the day could understand it!


The KJV is the most accurate English translation on the market today.

One day Ed might grace us all with proof rather than assertion and numerology, and explain why the current KJV has removed the Apocrypha that was part of the original 1611 KJV. But even if he is right, the archaic language frequently misleads, e.g. leading to the errant "gap theory" with "replenish the earth" in Genesis 1:28. The word replenish used to mean "fill up" which is what the Hebrew male meant, but now normally means "refill". So the modern translations that have "fill the earth" communicate God's word accurately to modern English speakers.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 01:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=232481#post232481)
EdJones:

The English language was at the height of its grammatical accuracy during the Elizabethan period. The KJV is the most accurate English translation on the market today.

Actually, this is patently false. Grammatical accuracy has nothing to do with how a language is spoken, for grammar is descriptive when spoken.

How do I know this?

I am a grammarian, even if it is in another language.

[Pilgrim]

Yesterday @ 12:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233097#post233097)
Jaltus:



Actually, this is patently false. Grammatical accuracy has nothing to do with how a language is spoken, for grammar is descriptive when spoken.

How do I know this?

I am a grammarian, even if it is in another language.

Hey, has Ed taken you up on the debate challenge yet?

[bar Jonah]

Pilgrim:
Hey, has Ed taken you up on the debate challenge yet?
Do you have any other silly questions? 'Cuz I'm sure he could just answer them all at the same time... :riwink:

[Jaltus]

Ed is dodging and weaving just like Hollyfield didn't.

[EdJones]

The Bible claims for itself VERBAL INSPIRATION. This is the

doctrine that God chose to BREATH His words through His

prophets, that these prophets SPOKE God's words, and that

these words were later reduced to the writings that we know

today as the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21;

2Sam 23:2; Jer. 1:9; Luke 1:70; Jer 36). Christians generally

believe this doctrine by faith alone.

I have Gods preserved, inspired words, do you?

[Reasonable]

Why are people still fooling with EdJones? Aren't there any intelligent arguments for the KJO camp out there?

[Pilgrim]

good point. Hey Ed, I didn;t realize you had the original autographs in Greek and Hebrew...you could really make some money with that.

[EdJones]

10-06-2003 @ 10:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=235583#post235583)
EdJones:

The Bible claims for itself VERBAL INSPIRATION. This is the

doctrine that God chose to BREATH His words through His

prophets, that these prophets SPOKE God's words, and that

these words were later reduced to the writings that we know

today as the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21;

2Sam 23:2; Jer. 1:9; Luke 1:70; Jer 36). Christians generally

believe this doctrine by faith alone.

I have Gods preserved, inspired words, do you?




What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only?

What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions all saying different things - hundreds of different Greek texts all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope!

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?

Here's a thought, why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?

[bar Jonah]

EdJones:
What's wrong with believing the King James Bible Only?

What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions all saying different things - hundreds of different Greek texts all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope!

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?

Here's a thought, why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers", while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters"?
What's wrong with believing the New American Standard Bible?

What do YOU have to offer in its place other than confusion - hundreds of different versions (including the 1611 KJV) all saying different things - hundreds of different Latin texts and others all saying different things because you DO KNOW that the 'originals' are not available, right? You do know that, I hope...

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4 What do you have to offer us regarding that EVERY word of God that we are to live by?

Here's a thought, why can't you just leave us "ignorant brethren" alone with our belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures and let us retain the title "Bible-believers," while you could use the title "Bible-correctors and interpreters?"

:rihrm:

[themuzicman]

10-06-2003 @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=235583#post235583)
EdJones:

The Bible claims for itself VERBAL INSPIRATION. This is the

doctrine that God chose to BREATH His words through His

prophets, that these prophets SPOKE God's words, and that

these words were later reduced to the writings that we know

today as the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21;

2Sam 23:2; Jer. 1:9; Luke 1:70; Jer 36). Christians generally

believe this doctrine by faith alone.

I have Gods preserved, inspired words, do you?

So, if we have verbal inspiration, is the canon closed?

Michael

[Pilgrim]

hey Ed, what about that debate with Jaltus...

are you: :eek:

[EdJones]

How could I, as a born again Bible believer have anything in common to debate with someone who has no faith in Gods word(KJV) or a(as in one) final authority? That would be like debating someones salvation.

[themuzicman]

Ah, yes, a bobbin' and a weavin'...

At least he admits that his faith in the KJV isn't supportable in scripture.

MIchael

[EdJones]

When you say "scripture" what do you mean?

[themuzicman]

I mean the written word of God, which was communicated to man in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and preserved in those languages by God via various means.

Michael

[EdJones]

Is that what you read?

[themuzicman]

When I have to. Generally, I rely on the work of various translators from various periods of time from the 1600s to today.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 11:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237542#post237542)
EdJones:

How could I, as a born again Bible believer have anything in common to debate with someone who has no faith in Gods word(KJV) or a(as in one) final authority? That would be like debating someones salvation.

1. If this is true why are you still talking with Music since undoubtedly you condisdder him to be in the same category as jaltus.

2. Can we take this to mean that you are going to stop posting here at TWeb forthwith?

[Jaltus]

Ed,

If you are saying that the KJV is the only way to faith, then you are going to be branded a heretic.

Read John 14:6. THere is nothing about the KJV or even the Bible in there.

[Pilgrim]

Well Jaltus, don't you know? In the KJV John 14:6 clearly mentions the KJV. :ahem:

[EdJones]

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?



.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 05:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=238167#post238167)
EdJones:

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?



.

And who taught you that it was?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237556#post237556)
EdJones:

When you say &quot;scripture&quot; what do you mean?

I can only speak for the ancient sheepherder but here is what I consider scripture.
ככלב שב על-קאו כסל שונה באולתו

sumbebhken de autoiV to thV alhqouV paroimiaV kuwn epistreyaV epi to idion exerama

[Pilgrim]

Ed, why are you still posting? I thought according to your earlier posts that we were not worth debating with? Why are you still here?

[EdJones]

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

[bar Jonah]

We didnt' say it's fallible. We said it's errant. Please pay attention.

And the greatest teacher, the Holy Spirit, tells me so. I'm sure everyone else would say the same.

So where does that leave you?

[Jaltus]

I would agree that the Holy Spirit tells me the KJV is errant. However, I would say the KJV is infallible.

[Pilgrim]

That is exactly how I would view it.

[EdJones]

.



The same Holy Spirit of Truth who verbally inspired the Word in the autographs is committed also to its verbal preservation in the textual, transmissional, and translation process.

In the history of a given Bible where God was actively guiding there will be at least three key periods:



(1) The Manuscript Period
(2) The Early Printed Edition Period
(3) The Period of an Authoritative Standard Edition
In each of these periods God's Word will be current and available to His people. "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart that thou mayest do it" (Deut. 30:14).

In the first two periods God's Word may not have been available from the same written source. Relatively minor variations existed in the hand copied manuscripts of the Received Text tradition. The early printed Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza had some variation, as did the early printed English versions. Yet, God's promise of guiding into all truth could still be counted on, and through the comparing of several sources He would put upon the heart of his people which of the variants was the true reading.

For example, Wycliffe's Bible was based on the Latin Vulgate and was therefore flawed. Yet it could be clarified with the Celtic, Waldensian, and Old Latin translations which had a Received Text tradition.

This same general principle could hold even today in those remote and primitive areas where only a preliminary translation is available. The earnest seeker of truth can know what a true reading is, for God has promised to "guide into all truth." There is, however, the disadvantage today that many missionary Bibles are based on the Alexandrian text.







.

[Jaltus]

*cough*

Actually, the Vulgate is part of the TR tradition.

*cough*

[EdJones]

When and where did you first lose your faith in the King James Bible?





.

[Pilgrim]

False dilema, he never lost his faith in the KJV, he just kept his faith in God's word in general.

[themuzicman]

Maybe the better question is when Ed stopped putting his faith in the Word of God, and put it in the KJV instead.

[Jaltus]

In order to lose one's faith in something, don't they have to have it first?

I think the KJV is a wonderful Bible, especially for the OT, but I never had faith "in" the KJV, I have faith in Christ alone and God alone.

Anything else is idolatry.

[themuzicman]

Are we blaspheming the KJV?

[Thomas2003]

10-02-2003 @ 11:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230126#post230126)
EdJones:







No, Dr. Ruckman is a Bible Believer not a member of the ALEXANDRIAN Or the Scholarship Only Cult.


What I meant is, isn't this reference to the Creed of the Alexandrian Cult, Dr. Ruckman's work?

[EdJones]

Yes it is.

[Thomas2003]

10-02-2003 @ 05:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230842#post230842)
Pilgrim:



Now you're playing the part of God are you? nice, way to violate the sum of the law in one swift post!

But what was that in the Bible, something about being prepared, what was it, in season and out...I guess you're not. Just as long as we know it I guess.


:duh:

You mean everyone is supposed to be able to debate higher critics? Why?

I believe Moses was a real person, who really was put in a basket on the Nile, was really found and made an adopted prince of Egypt, who really was cast out of Egypt and prepared by God to deliver Israel and give us the beginning of the written Holy Scriptures. I believe the first books of Moses are REALITY, giving an infallible record of history and an infallible record of God's law.

Higher critics don't believe that - the basis of their textual argument rests on a beleif that Moses is a MYTH. They start their and outwork that to show that Jesus Christ, as God manifested in the flesh, is a myth.

There is a difference between textual criticism that collates manuscripts and readings and compares previous translations to translate a Bible into English; as is the Authorized Version of the English Protestant Reformation. Compared to a group that intends to subvert and overthrow the faith of people in Jesus Christ by attacking the text and denying its authenticity and credibility as Holy Scripture.

There was the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, when one rejects the Reformation and its doctrines it is only natural that they reject the Bible of the Reformation and entertain the work of the counter-reformation, as does all of liberal protestantism.

Liberals can't attack the doctrines, so they attack the text that teaches the doctrines and if you fall for it - you don't have the multiple witnesses necessary to hold to Reformed doctrine and the high view of Trinity.

[Thomas2003]

10-02-2003 @ 06:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=230875#post230875)
RightIdea:


A &quot;Bible Believer&quot; just like me? You mean he also believes that God doesn't know everything about the future, and that Peter and Paul taught two distinctly different gospels? :riwink:


Yes, Dr. Ruckman is a dispensationalist and denies the eternality of the Son of God. Just like you.

Thomas

[Thomas2003]

What's wrong with believing the New American Standard Bible?

It does not have standing in the English law order and undercuts the peace and liberties of the Gospel bought by the blood of Christian Saints for over 500 years. You would have never been killed for having the text of the NASV, those having the Authorized Versions text are still under the pain of death by the Roman Catholic Church - it has never been lifted.

Thus, the NASV fosters the destruction of the fruit of the Gospel and opens the door - with a wide birth - to every imagination of mans heart as what the law is. Which we can see today in homosexual marriages and a hostile attack upon Christianity, such as the Supreme Court's ideological rejection of Christianity in 1947 and how it has outworked that by outlawing public prayers and licensing Churches and demanding public worship of the United States as God.

The new american standard of an explicit humanism is the direct fruit of the "New American Standard Bible", that is its purpose, to usurp the Common Law in America codified by King James 1 and inculcated into our Law Order in Common Law Constitutions of the several states and their union compact. This is interdependent upon the Holy Scriptures and necessarily must be the same.

It has done a marvelous job of destroying mens faith in the words of the Bible as God's very words and spitting upon the graves of countless Christians who have died for the Faith once delivered to the saints.

[themuzicman]

:lmbo:

A new version of the bible did all THAT?

:haha:

[Thomas2003]

I mean the written word of God, which was communicated to man in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and preserved in those languages by God via various means.

Musicman said the above in response to Ed's question what he means concerning Scripture.

I would like to know if you consider any translation to be Scripture - and if not, does this mean you do not have the word of God in any language but those listed above?

[Pilgrim]

Has anyone ever seen that old "In Living Color" skit where Damon Wayans plays a janitor who just starts spouting off the biggest and most technical words he has heard in pretty much random order? He sounds pretty educated until you listen and realize the words mean nothing and are just confusing...it's a very funny skit and I immediately thought of it while reading Ed's and thomas' posts today.

[themuzicman]

I consider the autographs to be scripture. I also consider the reconstructed texts to be "close enough." The differences in our understanding of what the originals were is now merely technical, rather than doctrinal, as far as we can tell.

Any translation is just that: A translation. I don't despise the work of the KJV translators, but neither do I consider them to BE scripture.

Furthermore, the difference between the NASB and the KJV aren't significant enough to quibble about. If anything, the NASB has received the results of much of the textual criticism which the KJV preceeded.

Subsequent versions have their own value, but we also need to understand the philosophy underwhich each was translated, so we can best understand the original intent.

Michael

[Jaltus]

I have had friends thrown in jail for having the NASB, so stop playing martyr. Have YOU ever been killed for having the KJV?

Didn't think so.

Stop playing with fire, these are obviously issues you have never even been confronted with, and it really angers me when ethnocentric people like you throw around words like "dying for their faith" when you obviously have no clue what that means.

Dying for the KJV? Hardly.

Dying for carrying a Bible at all? Likely.

You do know the KJV was called the Authorized Version for a reason, don't you? It was because you were allowed to carry it. How many more unsubstantiated facts do you plan on throwing around?

[Paulbarbee]

Thomas2003

Liberals can't attack the doctrines, so they attack the text that teaches the doctrines and if you fall for it - you don't have the multiple witnesses necessary to hold to Reformed doctrine and the high view of Trinity.


A. By the admission of most fundamentalists there is roughly an 8% difference in ALL the texts of the New Testament.
B. All major doctrines are still valid and provable from the texts of modern versions.
C. Most of the modern versions have of the questioned verses in their texts (possibly excluding 1 john 5:7-8) although in brackets. If you place your faith in "[" then it was probably pretty unsure in the first place.



Thomas2003
You would have never been killed for having the text of the NASV, those having the Authorized Versions text are still under the pain of death by the Roman Catholic Church - it has never been lifted.


Then why is the text which formed the Textus Receptus, from which the Authorized Version was translated still in the majority of extant manuscripts??? Why hasn't the Roman Catholic Church burned the literally thousands of Byzantine manuscripts that we know exist?

Why does the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims have Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7-8, and even the words "Come and see" in Revelation 6:1 when modern Bibles have simply "Come"?? Maybe b/c thew Douay Rheims was built off of manuscripts very similar to the KJV? We aren't sure what manuscripts the Douay Rheims was translated from but the readings obviously AGREE with the King James version, thus proving this point false. The Roman Catholic Church wouldn't translate from manuscripts they disagreed with and they definitely would not let those readings into their translation of the Bible.



Thomas2003

Thus, the NASV fosters the destruction of the fruit of the Gospel and opens the door - with a wide birth - to every imagination of mans heart as what the law is. Which we can see today in homosexual marriages and a hostile attack upon Christianity, such as the Supreme Court's ideological rejection of Christianity in 1947 and how it has outworked that by outlawing public prayers and licensing Churches and demanding public worship of the United States as God.

The new american standard of an explicit humanism is the direct fruit of the "New American Standard Bible", that is its purpose, to usurp the Common Law in America codified by King James 1 and inculcated into our Law Order in Common Law Constitutions of the several states and their union compact. This is interdependent upon the Holy Scriptures and necessarily must be the same.

It has done a marvelous job of destroying mens faith in the words of the Bible as God's very words and spitting upon the graves of countless Christians who have died for the Faith once delivered to the saints.


I own a copy of the NASB and use most it often when I want an translation. Romans 1 and the verses against homosexuality are still in it. As a matter of fact it actually uses the word Homosexuals in 1Cor. 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, which may be easier for the modern reader to understand instead of "abusers of themselves with mankind" or "them that defile themselves with mankind" which the KJV uses. Personally I disagree with both translations in both places as nether gives a good enough translation in my opinion, ( the word in 1 Cor 6:9 means more "effeminate" or "careless" and the word in 1 Tim. 1: 10 is rendered "One guilty of unnatural offenses" in my Liddell and Scott Greek English Lexicon.)

How has the NASB "done a marvelous job of destroying mens faith in the words of the Bible as God's very words and spitting upon the graves of countless Christians who have died for the Faith once delivered to the saints?" By sometimes pointing out the fact that there is more than one reading in the extant manuscripts as the original KJV did in its footnotes and thus allowing the reader to decide for him/herself instead of the editions of the KJV currently out which lull the reader into not thinking about the fact that there are different readings?? If the translators of the 1611 KJV originally had footnotes why corrupt the translation by removing those notes? It seems to me that intellectual honesty and thinking about all of the facts is better than a blind belief in a certain translation.

[EdJones]

False dilema, he never lost his faith in the KJV, he just kept his faith in God's word in general.

That's what I thought.

If he thinks he knows so much why doesn't he write his own Bible?
Anyone got any thoughts on what the name should be?:deal:







.

[spl_cadet]

You would have never been killed for having the text of the NASV, those having the Authorized Versions text are still under the pain of death by the Roman Catholic Church - it has never been lifted.

Mind stating what Church documents said to kill those in possession of the KJV, or even simply excommunicate them?

Also, do you have any actual instances of such?

[Pilgrim]

Ed, you always make me laugh. Thanks.

i would inagine that Jaltus has translated a good bit of the greek at least though.

[Jaltus]

To date, I have translated all of Mark (my translation of it is pretty bad, it was only my third semester of Greek), a large portion of John and Acts, all of Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, I Timothy, I-III John, and I Peter. I have done at least portions of Jude, II Timothy, Revelation, Matthew, Luke, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, and Hebrews.

I think the only book I have not worked in at all is Philemon.

[Paulbarbee]

Oh, well then quick, translate a verse out of Philemon just to say you've worked in the whole New Testament. :tongue:
I've translated a lot of 1 John (Had some help from a tutor) and few scattered verses here and there.
Bows before Jaltus' MUCH better translational abilities.
(:paulbarbee:) :bow: :jaltus:

[Jaltus]

My translation of part of I John is around this forum somewhere.

I keep posting a new verse every now and again.

[Socrates]

10-11-2003 @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240496#post240496)
Jaltus:

You do know the KJV was called the Authorized Version for a reason, don't you? It was because you were allowed to carry it. How many more unsubstantiated facts do you plan on throwing around?

And the KJV carried the equivalent of a copyright for about a century. So much for those who attack the modern versions for having copyrights.

[Socrates]

10-11-2003 @ 04:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=240182#post240182)
Thomas2003:

It does not have standing in the English law order and undercuts the peace and liberties of the Gospel bought by the blood of Christian Saints for over 500 years. You would have never been killed for having the text of the NASV, those having the Authorized Versions text are still under the pain of death by the Roman Catholic Church - it has never been lifted.

Can't see that. After all, both the RC and EO church believe that the last verses of Mark are canonical.


Thus, the NASV fosters the destruction of the fruit of the Gospel and opens the door - with a wide birth - to every imagination of mans heart as what the law is. Which we can see today in homosexual marriages and a hostile attack upon Christianity, such as the Supreme Court's ideological rejection of Christianity in 1947 and how it has outworked that by outlawing public prayers and licensing Churches and demanding public worship of the United States as God.

Come off it! Blame Darwinian evolution for all that, including evolving views of the Constitution. I have personally led systematic theology study groups and had no trouble finding the Trinity and opposing homosexual acts from the NASB and NIV.


It has done a marvelous job of destroying mens faith in the words of the Bible as God's very words and spitting upon the graves of countless Christians who have died for the Faith once delivered to the saints.

I think the archaisms of the KJV give the skeptics lots of target practice. Conversely, many skeptics hate the NIV translators for harmonizing contradictions. For example, in 2 Samuel 21:8, who had the five sons, the childless (!) Michal (KJV) or her sister Merab (NIV, NASB).