100% or 95-98%?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by FrankBetz, Apr 24, 2005.

  1. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    So which is it? 100% the Word of God?

    95-98% only, due to the multitudes of available MSS?

    Would your assumption place God in being 100% by that or only 95-98% God?

    And I do wonder, just how closely linked to spiritism the 95-98% MSS crowd is linked to the "Yin and Yeng".

    For those not familiar, if there WAS a spot of evil in all that is considered pure, and a spot of good in all that is evil/ yin and yeng, wouldn't God be less than 100% if He isn't able to preserve His Holy Bible PERFECTLY??

    I post this in effort for one to see the danger in multiple conflicting MSS when the aspect of simple logic is applied in reason
     
  2. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    It is this multitude of manuscripts which constitute the 100% perfect Word of God, not one particular version.
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any version individually: 95-98% textually accurate, 100% message accurate. 100% the word of God.

    To help you understand, consider that the KJV vs. the TR do not have 100% textual matching.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Frank, you could apply the same question to the Four Gospels as they appear in any given version, as they each give different narrations of the same events, some going into more detail than the others about individual events.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Actually, the inconsistent KJV-only theory results in multiple conflicting MSS and authorities before 1611 or before 1769 and in
    multiple conflicting translations in various langauges. If not, please identify and name the specific MSS that the KJV follows 100%.

    Does the KJV-only theory result in multiple conflicting editions of the KJV?

    Does the KJV-only theory suggest that God was
    not able to preserve 100% the 1611 edition of the KJV in most present KJV editions? There are over 1800 words that are different between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present-day Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible.

    Even if you claim to have a 100% perfect translation, are you claiming that you can understand and interpret that translation 100% perfectly or infallibly? Are you the new infallible "pope" concerning Bible translations
    so that all must accept your opinion or be wrong?
     
  6. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    FrankBetz asked:

    wouldn't God be less than 100% if He isn't able to preserve His Holy Bible PERFECTLY??

    Who (apart from you) suggested that God wasn't able?
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Terry_Herrington -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    FrankBetz: "I post this in effort for one to see the danger
    in multiple conflicting MSS when the aspect of simple logic
    is applied in reason."

    Unfortunately your "reason" is unreasonable.
    The KJV1611 shows that your reasoning is incorrect:
    On the first page of the New Testament in the King James
    Version this verse and this margine note are found:

    S.Matthew J.11

    And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.


    Margin note: Some read: Iosias begate Iakim,
    and Iakim begat Iechonias


    This means there is a textual variation between the
    Greek sources available to the translators of the
    King James Version. The translators believed that
    the source that ommits Iakim is more like the original
    than is the source that includes Iakim.
    This means that the translators of the KJV were doing
    textual criticism.

    Note than in verse 17 the inculsion of Iakim would
    increase the number to 15 (instead of 14).

    IMHO the translator footnotes and the text of each
    English Version * are inerrant and inspired.

    *caveat: the New World Translation, the Reader's Digest
    Bible, and others not faithful to the available sources
    are NOT inerrant and inspired English Bibles.

    Caveat: cross-reference margin notes are not inerrant
    and inspired; maps are not inerrant and inspired;
    comentaries in margine notes are not inerrant and
    inspired -- Only the translator footnoes that show
    variants in sources and variants in translation meaning
    are inerrant and inspired.
     
  9. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Word of God is 100% in the original autographs, and about 98% in any given version (with the exception like the New World Translation; Reders Digest, etc)

    I am of the opinion, that in the 1000's of Manuscripts, Ancient Versions, and quotations from the early text by the orthodox Church fathers, the Word of God has been preserved 100%. No version can claim to be 100% the Word of God, since this would then require the said translation to be Infallable and Inerrant, something not possible for a translation, no matter how good it may be. This is even true of the TR and KJV.
     
  11. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If you are "trying" to point out the (supposed) error in the KJB for there not being 40 in number in the lineage of Christ, you also leave out Ahab and his two sons. So did the Hebrews, considering them to be evil and wicked and their names blotted out of the Book of Life. But then!!! those who maintain this "error" are the ones that err!!

    The Holy Ghost does not "lie", there ARE 40 in the lineage of Christ. His Name? Take a Gooooooooooood LOoooooooong guess?!?

    Hint: it has something to do with Jehovah!!
     
  12. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If I were to take the time to search this out, you, Sir, will have beeen found to be lying. In another forum, I have read your post stating that you are now KJB only. Online.com ring a bell?
     
  13. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You have, along with everyone else that cannot produce a 100% infallable Bible, except htis "one" yall keep referring to scattered amongst multiple MSS, not anyone being sure which exactly being 100%, thus MAKING your own god that is scattered and not able to give man His complete Word.

    This is the answer to your dillema.
     
  14. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Actually, the inconsistent KJV-only theory results in multiple conflicting MSS and authorities before 1611 or before 1769 and in
    multiple conflicting translations in various langauges. If not, please identify and name the specific MSS that the KJV follows 100%.

    Does the KJV-only theory result in multiple conflicting editions of the KJV?

    Does the KJV-only theory suggest that God was
    not able to preserve 100% the 1611 edition of the KJV in most present KJV editions? There are over 1800 words that are different between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present-day Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible.

    Even if you claim to have a 100% perfect translation, are you claiming that you can understand and interpret that translation 100% perfectly or infallibly? Are you the new infallible "pope" concerning Bible translations
    so that all must accept your opinion or be wrong?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you and no thank you.

    Thanks for allowing everyone to see that the KJBtranslators knew more than you could possibly ever know with that assumption blinding you.

    No thanks for trying to vote me into that position in your vatican. But you should ask your cohorts first.
     
  15. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am so sorry you decide to reamin confused.
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have

    Wrong again Frank.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did the KJV translators know more than you?

    Lancelot Andrewes, a leading KJV translator,
    wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (PATTERN OF CATECHISTICAL DOCTRINE, p. 59).

    The KJV translators did not hold to the inconsistent KJV-only assumptions that blind you.
    The KJV translators rejected and refuted the one-perfect-translation-only theory of their day that used several of the same arguments that are used for the man-made KJV-only theory today.
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you deciding to remain confused by the
    inconsistent, conflicting claims and reasoning
    of the man-made KJV-only theory?
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is the KJV 100% or even 95-98% in agreement with the earlier pre1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God according to your KJV-only reasoning?

    KJV-only author Robert Sergent wrote: "Tyndale's translation greatly influenced the Authorized Version which retains some 80% of Tyndale's English text" (ENGLISH BIBLE: MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, p. 193).
     
  20. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Still right, you're still guessing.
     

Share This Page

Loading...