1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A need for a reverse-litmus test

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, May 24, 2011.

  1. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You seem to forget that the bible was not written in English, period. Nor was it codified in a single manuscript. What we have are translations of the consildations of the manuscripts we DO have.

    The KJV was translated from most of the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. A whole lot more have been discovered since then, with most predating those used in the translation of the KJV. It seems that most who push the KJVO stance forget these basic facts. None of this discounts the KJV as it is a great work for what they had at the time, using much of the work that had already been done in earlier translations.

    It just gripes me to no end that the translations made after the KJV are slighted, discredited, and down right condemned by these same KJVO folks (including you, SL) becuase none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV. Well, none can as those perished in a fire not long after the KJV was published, not to mention that they were compiled just for the KJV and not something anyone else had access to to begin with.

    Nor were the translators and compilers of the KJV the only spiritual individuals who have ever worked on such a work (even though you and yours try to make out that they were a half-inch shy of being divine and everyone since then are pimples on the devil's backside). There have been many godly individuals and groups who have poured their lives into researching and translating God's word into the modern language of the time. I said "language" and not "English" because English is not the only language in the world, nor is it the only one God knows or uses.

    If you want a litmus test, use the words of the original languages as your measuring stick and not what one group thought 400 years ago.
     
  2. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Exactly. And I don't believe any manuscripts agree 100% with each other, do they?
     
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Trotter

    You said.....
    I have not forgotten that.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said........
    That’s great. So God had preserved His Word for us by the “early 17th century”.
    Case closed!
    --------------------------------------------------
    You continued........
    I could talk about why, those particular manuscripts that were so old, were still around and are in such good condition, but you have already established that God had preserved his word by the “early 17th century.”

    Therefore, what more needs to be done!?!

    It was either preserved, or it wasn’t!
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said........
    Sorry to upset you so much, but did you read the words you just wrote.....
    You said, I slight the MV’s....“because none used the exact manuscripts used for the KJV”

    Well shouldn’t I be upset?
    As you said, these manuscripts were God’s Word(from the “early 17th century”);
    Therefore when Bible publishers use “different manuscripts”, shouldn’t that make all of us upset?!?
    --------------------------------------------------
    You also said.......
    Now your building a straw man. We are talking about “Greek manuscripts”, not translations.

    But....if you want to talk about translations; Tell me, what language are the NIV, or the ASB, or the NASB, etc. written in?

    Certainly they can’t be in English, because as you said, we already had God’s Word preserved in English, as far back as the “early 17th century”.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Great word twisting!! I'm glad doctors don't have that same belief. My daughter would be dead right now.

    Ahhh - right!! We know that God hid all those other manuscripts until the 17th century because they were bad. But then He failed and let them be found!! Forbid!! Oh but wait!! They agree 99% of the time with the former manuscripts so that must mean.....

    No, why? Because they are bad? No they are not. If they were, the ALL of the Bibles we have would be bad as well.


    God's Word is preserved in the ESV that I have sitting next to me. It is also preserved in the NASB that I have open on my computer.
     
  5. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    It shouldn't be. It uses the TR. There are a few people that disagree, yet they are unable to produce any examples of the NKJV deviating from the TR.
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your illogic completely amazes me, still, as does you trying to tell God what He can and cannot do.
     
  7. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    101
    I don't understand why y'all try to reason with the KJVO crowd. It's just not a wise use of your time. The theological, historical, hermeneutical, and philosophical distance between your positions is so insurmountable I can't imagine it's ever going to be covered.

    Plus half the time I think stilllearning is just yanking ya around.
     
  8. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi preachinjesus


    I wish I were, just “yanking them around”, but this is serious business.

    When a Christian has been convinced, that the Bible, is no more than simply a work of man, that is susceptible to all the errors and mistakes of any other man-made book;
    That Christian, has lost something very precious........
    Psalms 119:162
    “I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.”

    When we are unable to fully trust every word in our Bible, to be God’s perfectly preserved Word for us, then it has lost some of it’s value to us.
    ---------------------------------------
    Oh by the way, if you look back through this thread, you will see that I am not really KJVO.

    Because we have gone beyond the KJVO issue, and have gotten into the issue of preservation.
     
  9. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    1. Nobody denies that God has preserved the Bible
    2. The KJV as with ALL translations are man made translations
    3. The KJV translators didn't believe their work was perfect.
    4. the KJV translators didn't use a singular text for their work showing that they didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed.

    so you say...

    Answer this honestly: Is the KJV perfectly translated?

    If you say no, then which one is per your argument.
    If you say yes, then why wouldn't you be kjvo if it's perfect?
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Could you give one example where the NKJV translators deviated from the same textual body as Geneva and King James translations?

    By the way, that same website that you give so much credence to condemns the LXX which you hold to as a support for your theory of one version onlyism.
     
    #70 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jun 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2011
  11. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi jbh28

    I have no trouble being honest.

    No, the KJB, isn’t “perfectly translated”.

    So therefore you asked........
    As I said earlier in this thread, when I was asked..........
    And I said.........
    -------------------------------------------------
    The “issue” isn’t which translation is perfect, but “do we have something perfect, to translate from”??

    If you(or anyone else), says.....”no” to this question.
    Than you are flatly denying that God has preserved His Word!

    Simply saying.......
    “Nobody denies that God has preserved the Bible”
    doesn’t make it so.

    There are plenty of people on the BB, that openly deny preservation all together.
    And I congratulate them, for their honesty!

    And to clarify my earlier statement.

    Yes, “translation” is a “work of man”: But the end result isn’t!
    If the translators, were translating from “time tested manuscripts”.
    -----------------------------------------------
    One more thing; Your statement.........
    For all intents and purposes, the TR, is a “singular text”!
    And stating that other people “didn't believe a perfect Greek/Hebrew text existed”, might make you feel better in your unbelief, but your are still stuck, with your lack of faith.

    We are 400 years removed; How in the world can we know what they “believed”!
    Anyway, my faith isn’t based upon the faith of others.
     
  12. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here is what I "actually" said, about that site..........
    So didn't give it all that much "credence"!
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    So even though it tells one, what you would consider a lie, you still think we should 'not take a chance' and trust what it says about the NKJV?

    The litmus test is easy.

    Find one instance where the NKJV chooses a critical text rendering over a 'TR' rendering. That would be proof that the NKJV it less accurate to those texts than the Geneva translation that you admit you might very well accept.
     
    #73 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jun 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2011
  14. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ok, good for you.
    No I haven't. The KJV trasnaltors didn't have anything perfect to translate from. They used multiple texts. The TR that matches up with the KJV was actually put together AFTER the KJV.
    When do you think the end resut is? It's the work of man.

    It has nothing to do with a lack of faith on my part and I wish you would stop saying things as this. The TR is a combination of other texts and there have been multiple TR's. The KJV didn't come from one text.
    sure it is because the faith of the Bible says nothing about there being a singular perfect Greek text.
     
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Good; then

    what happened to your answer?
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I read the article over a couple of times and I cannot agree with your OP that Mr. Camp is a dishonest reporter.

    The closest he seems to come to 'double inspiration' (those words don't actually appear anywhere in the article) is by quoting another person's somewhat subdued but otherwise accurate description of Ruckman as being "extreme" and his views as being "idiosyncratic" --
    Peter Ruckman, founder of Pensacola Bible Institute, became one of the movement’s most strident and extreme advocates over the last 40 years, Straub explained.

    “Many of his views are idiosyncratic with regard to the general teachings of most KJV proponents. For example, Ruckman believes the (King James) 1611 sometimes is superior to any Greek text,” he said. “That is, when there is a discrepancy between the KJV and the manuscripts, … then the KJV should be considered authoritative.”
    So, it should be plain to see here that Ken Camp is not guilty of broad-brushing all KJVO folks as 'nuts' that hold those peculiar and outlandish views of Ruckman.

    On what basis do you accuse Camp of dishonesty? Please produce a quotation from the article to support your accusation.
     
    #76 franklinmonroe, Jun 5, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2011
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I cannot find in the Camp article any such charge. Please reproduce the statement from the article that would substatiate your accusation. Thanks.
     
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    There are a couple; I can only recommend the one I have read which the ALT (Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament).
     
  19. BobinKy

    BobinKy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    stilllearning...

    Thanks for using the term KJB.

    ...Bob



    [​IMG]
     
    #79 BobinKy, Jun 6, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2011
  20. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello again Bob

    We can both thank "winman" for the term "KJB"!
    I like it too.
     
Loading...