Heretick or Divisive?

Hi Will,

I've not been around the Baptist Board in ages, but decided to come back today to read some of the posts. I must say, I had been begining to wander towards this "all versions say basically the same thing" attitude - but your post above has proven this completely wrong! Thank you for your message. I'm sticking with the A.V.!

 

It should read what the original author wrote. If the original author wrote "he", then "she" (although maybe factually true) would be a textual corruption, and vice versa. </font>[/QUOTE]Brian, You don't know what the original "penman" wrote and the KJB Translators did. Now go back to your sand box toys and hush.

I don't guess about corruptions, I see them and also can smell'em

 

Again, you tell me what I believe. Again, you are wrong.

Will, "belief in an inspired Bible" and "belief that the KJV is word-perfect and should be used exclusively and all other Bibles are not God's word" are two completely different things. I agree the first is historical. The second is NOT - it is unorthodox, it not historical, and it is divisive. Strictly speaking then, according to your definitions in your first post, it is heresy. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Brian, since the LORD is divisive against the proliferations by satan, does that make Him a heretic? GOD FORBID.

 

If the KJV is so perfect then why has it not made the same distinction that the Greek does with "love" in verses 15 and 17 of John 21?

 

I would ask you to look a little closer at how you've said this.

Your "error".

Hank, I like you man, you have a very ,uh,wierd sense of humor.

In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?

BTW, if you didn't have a "button" to push, I couldn't PUSH it!

 

I would ask you to look a little closer at how you've said this.

Your "error".

Hank, I like you man, you have a very ,uh,wierd sense of humor.

In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?

BTW, if you didn't have a "button" to push, I couldn't PUSH it! </font>[/QUOTE]How many do you think have not been corrupted?

 

QS: "In the quotes by Ruckman, he must have been right about which Greek, the corrupt Greek mss or the right Greek MSS. I believe we ought to throw out the corrupt Greek mss don't you?"

How does Dr. Ruckman know which are corrupt and which are not?

 

Will J. Kinney: "Brian, the position I now see several
of you Biblical relativists promoting is that all the bible
versions are inspired and infallible, no matter how contradictory
in numerous passages, and no matter that the ESV adds
literally hundreds of words to the Old Testament
not found even in the NASB, or NIV."

This is exactly the same argument i've seen agnostics
and athiests use to argue me down when i say the
Holy Bible is inerrant.

Ed, the position I now see several of you Bible thumpers
promoting is that all the Bible is inspired and infallible,
no matter how contradictory in numerous passages,
and no matter that the Bible adds literally hundreds of words
in italics (i.e. not found in the source documents).

 

I honestly don't know why. I have explained it numerous times to you, I have shown you how even the KJV translators hold the same position as I do. If you are as well-studied on the issue as you present yourself to be, you should at least know and understand the position of those you are arguing against. You have been debating this for years, and have written many articles, and yet you don't even understand what you are arguing against? Don't you realize how totally amazing (and somewhat ridiculous) that appears to us?

 

I agree completely Will. But then there is a big problem here. Who are we to say what is intentional and what is not. We may strongly suspect but unless those who made the change admit to dishonesty then we have to determine what is correct and what is not the best we can from a criteria that makes sense and does not insult the intelligence.

Bottom line: an error is an error. It is just as wrong after we know the motive of the blunderer as it was wrong before we knew said motive.

Therefore I would say to forget the motive.
God will take care of that in the bye-and-bye.
All we can do is determine the truth from the "tried and true" as the Spirit leads.

HankD

 

As to the "corrupt" Greek Text. I don't like the word "corrupt". I prefer "flawed" or a phrase such as "poor scribal quality".

We may say something is corrupt such as the Alexandrian MS. Others however prefer them because they are "oldest" and therefore conclude they are "best".

My faith belief trusts in the "tried and true" of the TR which came out of the same councils which decided the cannon of Scripture. Even W&H admitted to this and in fact every eclectic text with an aparatus contains all of the TR.
Some of it relegated to the apparatus but it is all or mostly there.

My kids also think I have a strange sense of humor. They know all my buttons as well.

HankD

 

So then you finally admit the KJHB is the Right Bible! Now if the rest of the bunch could walk in the light as you have.

 

So are you saying that none are spiritual no not even one, except you?

 

You may believe in the cannon of scripture but the canon was developed over a long period of time to where we have it today.

You do know that the TR was a political football at the time. In 1 John 5:7,8 it includes the Greek text translated from the Latin Vulgate which is not in any early manuscripts preceding the 16th century and not quoted by the early Chruch Fathers.

 

But isn't the thought implied and the "added" verses important to relate the doctrinal truth to the Trinity?

I wouldn't call this example of "adding" words, but only clarity to confirm and establish Doctrine. It is O.K. to confirm and establish the Doctrine of the Trinity isn't it?

 

Is verbal inspiration not translatable into English from Greek to establish in that language the full intent of the inspired Word?

Isn't there a slight difference in quoting "verbatum" vs simple translation of plenary and verbal inspiration? Isn't it impossible to translate "verbatum" the Greek into English?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the word "verbal" meaning to voice a meaning when used in translation when the verbatum isn't available?

Man, wouldn't that clear up alot of the nonsense about "added words"?

 

But isn't the thought implied and the "added" verses important to relate the doctrinal truth to the Trinity?

I wouldn't call this example of "adding" words, but only clarity to confirm and establish Doctrine. It is O.K. to confirm and establish the Doctrine of the Trinity isn't it? </font>[/QUOTE]The people who copied the manuscripts did add commentary in the margin at first to help explain the text. But then later some of it made it into the text of scripture. It is the job of the textual critic to try and determine what the original text was and put the commentary aside.

I John 5:7,8 is a deliberate effort in the 16 th century to come up with a Greek text for 1 John 5:7,8 when none existed. It is an effort to support a doctine but is not scripture. Therefore it cannot be nothing more than explanation or commentary and not part of the Bible. I belieev it is very misleading. If you knew how those verses made it into the Bible you would certainly suspect the motive of thsoe who did add it. It is much like someone saying, "The Bible says," when it really doesn't when it should be said that the Bible teaches.

There is absolutely no support for that addition. It should have never been there in the first place. My point is that it is an addition to the words God inspired. Anything other than what God inspired is not scripture. If you ever talk with the JW's they will tell you about those verses. I would not ever want to be ill informed and mislead someone intentionally. So many Christian writers from the past have led people to believe things that are simply not true and cannot be supported. They sound good and people marvel at how the preacher came up with such depth of understanding when it was not there in the first place.