Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/Textus_Receptus.htm </font>[/QUOTE]William W. Combs is a W/H man.

 

Bruce Metzger is found in Cloud's website:
BRUCE METZGER - by David Cloud

[ April 07, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Michelle, Excellent points to speak out for the truth!

 

W/H stands for Westcott and Hort. TR stands for Textus Receptus. I called 2 groups: The W/H groups and the TR group.

These W/H groups:

James R. White
Bruce Metzger
Daniel Wallace
and more....

These TR groups:

Thomas Strouse
D.A. Waite
David Otis Fuller
and more....

The W/H groups do not believe in the Bible. The TR groups believe it. See the difference between them.

 

I would love to, but once I show you a word in the KJV that is not in the TR you must promise not to condemn the KJV.

1) Get a copy of a TR interlinear Bible.
2) look up the following verse.

"(Rom 7:13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful."

3) Now look for the word for "God" in the TR text.

4) Surprised? It is not there. And it is not in italics in the KJV.

Why would the translators use "God" when there is no word that corresponds in the underlying text.

And this is not the only place.
Do a word search for "God forbid". In every place in Romans, it is not in the TR. Why?
I thought the KJV was accurate to the TR.

I could have posted something like 1 John 5:7, but I know you would have immediately rejected my claim because you say the alexandrian texts are corrupt. But I know you would never say that about the TR. So why do the translators depart from it here?

There is your proof: A word in the KJV that isn't in the TR, and it's not even italicized!! Isn't that a wee bit dishonest. No italics, and no footnotes. Amazing.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

Before the printing press and computers, manuscripts were hand copied. It was easy to leave things out or even add things. Some well-meaning scholars were known to have added a few words here and there to make the case for the Lord stronger. They did not realize, at the time, they were tampering with Holy Scriptures (or if they did, they unashamedly did it anyway). So, theory has it after dilligently comparing documents; the Westcott/Hort versions of the "original manuscripts" were compiled, printed and released for translators to use.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

Hiya. I have been sick the past couple of days (still am) and haven't been able (physically or mentally) to come to the BB boards. I was just reading through the rest of the posts, and came across this quote you posted.

I wanted to ask you something regarding it. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit would have and does have the power to preserve his words of truth through the saints? Do you believe the Lord would allow his people to add to his word and then preserve it, if it were something added to his word? Where do you see God's providence in the preservation of the scriptures? Have you read the preface for the REV? Do you honestly believe that the Lord allowed hundreds of generations of believers to believe, live, teach, preach, hand down "grave errors" of his word? And where do you get the proof that these scribes would have "added" to God's word (when there are serious warnings in the scriptures against doing such a thing) to make their "case" for the Lord "stronger"? What did they have to prove, if the very scriptures they were writing down were meant for the churches? Why would they have to make the "case" stronger? Do you honestly believe this?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Askjo:The W/H groups do not believe in the Bible. The TR groups believe it. See the difference between them.

I see the difference. The "W/H men" , as you call them, don't believe God retired to a park bench in 1611, & that He STILL overseees His word, while the "TR group", believes a man-made myth started by a 7th Day Adventist. Quite a difference.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

It stands for Westcott/Hort. Two scholars in the late 1800's who did their best to compile a document in the original languages from multiple manuscript sources in a scholarly attempt to provide scholars and translators with a copy as close to the originals as they could. Yes, some of the manuscripts they used did come from Alexandria because these manuscripts were some 100 to 200 years "older" than those available in the 1600's. The theory being, if it is closer to the originals in time, there is a good chance it is probably more accurate.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

Most, if not in fact all of the underlying text of most modern versions come from the Alexandrian family of texts, which came from the area of Alexandria, and are dated to be from about 400 A.D. One is Vaticanus, and the other Sinaticus. These are the manuscripts that most modern versions are based upon. Many ancient scholars had access to these manuscripts, but rejected them, they did not agree with the manuscripts from the various churches, and early church fathers writings.

Also of note, W/H text is the bases for the Nestles/Aland text. W/H's methods and mentors were men such as Johann Salomo Semler, who has been called the father of German Higher rationalism, who has been described as one of the architects of the higher critical method. He in turn influenced Johann Jakob Greisbach who was one of the fathers of modernism. It is Greisbach who W/H revered above all others, and was these very men that influenced them. These are men that denied the inspiration of the Bible and the method of approach with the scriptures, was that as of any other book. Westcott and Hort also believed in evolution.

By their fruits you shall know them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle: Do you believe that the Holy Spirit would have and does have the power to preserve his words of truth through the saints?

First, I hope you recover soon! This strain of flu now prevalent isn't quite as bad as some others were, & I hope that or something similar is all that's afflicting you & not something worse.

Since He's GOD, the Holy Spirit can do ANYTHING.yes, He CAN preserve God's word AS HE CHOOSES. But we must look carefully to see what IS of Him & what ISN'T.


Do you believe the Lord would allow his people to add to his word and then preserve it, if it were something added to his word?

Again, we must look for what are GENUINE additions such as what He gave to Jeremiah.

Where do you see God's providence in the preservation of the scriptures?

In the fact that most of the mss match fairly closely, and of prophecy coming to pass before our eyes.


Have you read the preface for the REV?

No.

Do you honestly believe that the Lord allowed hundreds of generations of believers to believe, live, teach, preach, hand down "grave errors" of his word?

God's word was available to those of the past as He chose, and we don't know today what all was available to them.

And where do you get the proof that these scribes would have "added" to God's word (when there are serious warnings in the scriptures against doing such a thing) to make their "case" for the Lord "stronger"?

Same place the KJVOs get "proof" that OLDER mss have OMITTED some material.


What did they have to prove, if the very scriptures they were writing down were meant for the churches? Why would they have to make the "case" stronger? Do you honestly believe this?

We cannot read the minds of those men, nor know all the reasons that ancient scribes copied the Scriptures. The case remains stronger that the LATER mss ADDED material than the one that says the OLDER mss OMITTED material.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

I see the difference. The "W/H men" , as you call them, don't believe God retired to a park bench in 1611, & that He STILL overseees His word, while the "TR group", believes a man-made myth started by a 7th Day Adventist. Quite a difference
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Please explain to me why then, Westcott and Hort fought to have a unitarian named "Smith" to remain on the committee, otherwise they refused to take part in it themselves? Why would they desire a unitarian to be part of this committee?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
robycop quoted:

We cannot read the minds of those men, nor know all the reasons that ancient scribes copied the Scriptures. The case remains stronger that the LATER mss ADDED material than the one that says the OLDER mss OMITTED material.
--------------------------------------------------

robycop,

Thanks for your words concerning my sickness. Both my children have been sick, but thank God they got over it more quickly than I seem to be.

Regarding the above quote, Is it safe for me to then assume that you believe older is better, over that of the preservation of the scriptures? Can I assume you "do believe" that God has allowed his people to believe things that were added to his words? Doesn't this go against the clear warnings in the scriptures concerning God's words? If so, shouldn't we then reject them? Do you also believe that God would preserve doctrine that "weakened" his truth over that of the "stronger"? Please provide for me with the scriptures, how you justify this belief.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In other words, I don't really want to engage in the material presented so I'll just attack the person and be done with it.

 

So many questions, so little time. I'll just focus on the one I've repeatedly asked, but haven't yet received an answer to.

Michelle wrote:

Michelle, once again, please provide at least one reference (chapter & verse) in an MV that presents a faithful translation of God's Word (yes, I'm not allowing the NWT here) that you believe weakens a fundamental doctrine, and then explain why you believe it is weakened. You've repeatedly stated that MV's weaken the doctrine of the Deity of Christ, so let's have it.

Please.

 

Prove it with your denial. </font>[/QUOTE] In other words, you have no proof at all for calling this believer in Christ a fool... in direct violation of the scripture I cited, correct?

Kutilek studies and knows this issue. He isn't perfect but he is by no means a "fool."

You missed the point on the Scripture that I gave you. Study hard! </font>[/QUOTE] No I didn't. Not in the least. I simply won't buy into your effort to pervert and abuse the scriptures to prove your false doctrine. The words written in the KJV are not the words spoken by Jesus. No amount of "study" will change that fact although "studying" for the purpose of perpetuating self deception might distort someone's discernment so that they attempt to co-opt this promise for a particular version.

This is your only argument on the term, "TR" all the time! </font>[/QUOTE] It appears to be the only one that needs to be made since neither you nor any of the other KJVO's have ever refuted it.

Erasmus used the pen and wrote down these words where he found from the sources such as 1 John 5:7. </font>[/QUOTE] Erasmus didn't believe that I John 5:7-8 as it now appears in the TR was original... and he left writings to that effect.

I would certainly hope that protestants would be willing to bury someone... even a Catholic or Muslim.

Are you saying that Erasmus was saved by the fact of who buried him? I would like to see your scriptural support for that.

I hope Erasmus was saved but the evidence is that he wasn't. I hope that Westcott and Hort were saved and there is evidence from their own writings and words that they might have been.

 

In other words, I don't really want to engage in the material presented so I'll just attack the person and be done with it. </font>[/QUOTE]That is what he wrote against the issue. Why did he focus on the issue than God?

 

W/H stands for Westcott and Hort. TR stands for Textus Receptus. I called 2 groups: The W/H groups and the TR group.

These W/H groups:

James R. White
Bruce Metzger
Daniel Wallace
and more....

These TR groups:

Thomas Strouse
D.A. Waite
David Otis Fuller
and more....

The W/H groups do not believe in the Bible. The TR groups believe it. See the difference between them. </font>[/QUOTE]***yawn*** willful ignorance

 

The problem with using the "fact" that God has allowed people to use the Bible for many years can be considered like this:

If this were the case, why did the Bible contain the Apocrypha for hundreds of years?

Why did God allow people to use the Vulgate for nearly 1000 years (much longer than the KJV) which did contain the apocrypha?

Let's get back to the definition of "God's Word", we have shown that it cannot be Word for Word when (it was either in this thread of another similar) I quoted a Word-for-Word translation out of the Textus Receptus and it was nowhere near that of understandable English sentence structure. Individual Words that do NOT effect doctrine that appear in a translation are a non-issue.

How about the Words we find in the KJV which were "added" by the translators that are italicized. The translators all clearly say that these words were "added" for clarification? These are not individual Words that came from the Original Manuscripts.

I would not go as far to say that the W/H groups believe the Bible any more than the Anglicans who translated the Bible. Remember why America became a country? Because we were seeking religious freedom from the Anglicans in Europe that controlled England, France AND Spain.

By saying the TR is more accurate because the people who had a hand in it were more Godly is just not a historical argument.

Let's also put the KJV into perspective. The 1611 is NOT the Bible we have today. THe one we use today is at least the 1769 if not later. So, therefore we do NOT have all of these hundreds of years, we only have about 250 years, at the most. The Vulgate with its apocrypha had almost 1000 years. Is IT the most accurate based on period of time Christians had it available to them?

 

W/H stands for Westcott and Hort. TR stands for Textus Receptus. I called 2 groups: The W/H groups and the TR group.

These W/H groups:

James R. White
Bruce Metzger
Daniel Wallace
and more....

These TR groups:

Thomas Strouse
D.A. Waite
David Otis Fuller
and more....

The W/H groups do not believe in the Bible. The TR groups believe it. See the difference between them. </font>[/QUOTE]***yawn*** willful ignorance </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, just quoting a few people who believe a particular manuscript group does not prove anything. Jim Jones and David Koresh both preached out of the KJ and probably knew more of it than many of us. Your point is moot.

 

Why do so many KJVO's focus on issues they have with MV's instead of God? Sounds like you just want to discount the information just because you don't like what you think his motivations are.

 

Naw. Ain't you figured it out yet, TC? KJVO's focus on their 'problems' with modern versions so as to take the focus off of their bogus, man-made myth.

It's called redirection, and almost every kid knows how to use it:
"Mom, he hit me!"
"But she stuck her tongue out at me first!"
See? The second one tried to redirect the blame on the first, even though he is the one who did the hitting.

KJVO's will not answer the hard questions about their 'belief' because they would have to admit that it is a bunch of hooey. So, instead, they scream and point at anything and everything they can to draw attention away from the hollowness that lies at the center of KJVO. I like to call it 'smoke and mirrors'.

You know, trying to get a straight answer out of a KJVO is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

In Christ,
Trotter