Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree

AVL1984 · Sep 7, 2004

Originally posted by rsr:
michelle, you could save a lot of bandwidth if you just posted:

"I don't believe it, so it's no so."
Click to expand...

Tell me about it. The long rants and raves are hardly worth reading, especially when she posts no proof, avoids questions, uses circular reasoning, and drones out the typical kjVERSION Only position.

AVL1984

David J · Sep 7, 2004

First, it is not my job to prove you wrong.

Great! Neither is it my job to prove you wrong. If you are a KJVO then it's my job to point out the errors of that way of thinking. If you are KJV preferred then I don't have a single reason to say anything to you. It is both of our jobs to stand for the truths contained in the bible and follow the teachings of the Word of the Most High

Second, would you tell me exactly what I have lied about, or are you simply looking for an argument?

I did not say that you lied. I was referring to militant KJVOist like Riplinger, Fuller, Chick, Gipp, Ruckman, etc....My point was that "if" people would just use the KJV and not make up junk like the NIV and NASB are satanic etc... then we would not be having these debates. If you thought that I was talking about you then I'm sorry.

Again, let me reiterate, I don't give a rat's behind what translation you use. I will continue to use the KJV.

Thats 100% fine with me. I use a NASB and you use a KJV. No problem at all! We both have the Word of the Most High in that both the KJV and NASB are faithful translations of the Hebrew and Greek. I have never told anyone not to use the KJV. So please do not misunderstand me.

If I wrongfully offended you then I am sorry. I was not looking to argue.

Dr. Bob · Sep 8, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
Changing English words, to different English words that alter the text and pure meaning of the text is also very wrong. Worship should NEVER be indicated as kneeling down. Kneeling down is only PART OF WORSHIP. I can kneel down to a king, but not necessarily be worshipping that king. Kneeling down in and of itself does not denote worship, and in that verse you give as an example WORSHIP is the true meaning of that verse.
Click to expand...

Changing English words is NOT WHAT THE NKJV did. They simply translated the inspired Greek word into proper English. Come on, they didn't CHANGE anything.

Unless you assume the ENGLISH in the AV1611 is perfect. Then to change it is HERESY!

The AV translators saw the lexical definition of proskuneo as "worship".

Anyone with a Greek lexicon will see the primary definition of proskuneo is "bow/kneel down" and "prostrate oneself".

So the NKJV, not CHANGING the KJV but simply trying to be honest in translating the Greek, opted for kneel down."

No conspiracy. No weakening. No doctrinal damage. Just faithful translators defining the word properly.

DeclareHim · Sep 8, 2004

Originally posted by michelle:
I would disagree with this link. This would be assuming that the 2nd century documents have no errors and are better and more accurate. This is the whole argument for the text that underlines the mv's.

No one says the 2nd Century texts are better than the originals but the fact remains that the text found in Alexandria were not messed with like the TR.
God's word of truth can and is traced within the churches of God, to which would also mean that more recent manuscript copies are more likely to be the accurate renderings.

What where did you get the idea that more recent copies are closer to the accurate renderings. That is false. The church also used the older MSS as well the world didn't copy God's Word. The church in Alexandria copied God's Word. And so they are just as accurate as those found in Byzantine (Antioch).

One also must look at what the church fathers writings had to say.

Yes. And when you do you come to the conclusion that they added to God's Word to make it fit their doctrine.

God's Word was not lost only to be found in the late 1800's, almost 1900's to be putting man into doubt of what he actually said. Many today are telling us that scriptures were added over the years, in order to justify these errors from the oldest and best manuscripts. This is not so.

Yes it is very likely that the Church fathers added verses to make their beliefs rock solid and were not in the originals.

This would basically be saying believers in the church purposely added to the manuscripts. Um yea it would wouldn't it.

It is far easier to take away from the word of God by accident in copying, than to add to it.

Textual critism in the extreme is heretical in my opinion, and lacks in faith.

If it wasn't for these corrupt manuscripts, and the Versions that came from them, none of us would even be debating this issue,

So it's fine if I read the Geneva Bible because it was translated from the TR and Latin Vulgate just as the KJV 1611 was. Great.

we have the infallible words of God in our language.

Amen in many differant translations.

1cross+3nails=4given
Click to expand...

Craigbythesea · Sep 8, 2004

In this example we see that the word "only" was omitted from a 3rd century document and copied in subsequent, daughter documents. All we need to do is to take a look at the manuscripts and even though we see nine variants here, actually we can tell that there is only one which has been copied. Also, we can accurately determine which is the correct reading by looking at the father document from the 2nd century.
Click to expand...

If only it were this simple, we would have no need for the science of textual criticism. But, of course, the matter is extremely complex. We have a huge puzzle, and most of the pieces are missing. Therefore, very much of the data must be extrapolated, and that job is far from being entirely objective.

Craigbythesea · Sep 8, 2004

If it wasn't for these corrupt manuscripts, and the Versions that came from them, none of us would even be debating this issue, nor would anyone doubt that we have the infallible words of God in our language.
Click to expand...

Wow! It never occurred to me before that all the archaic language and translation errors in the King James translation of the Bible were due to the science of textual criticism and a bunch of Alexandrian manuscripts. The KJO sect must be really smart to figure this out!

Craigbythesea · Sep 8, 2004

If it wasn't for these corrupt manuscripts, and the Versions that came from them, none of us would even be debating this issue, nor would anyone doubt that we have the infallible words of God in our language.
Click to expand...

"our language." That's right, our language. If you don't speak English, you don't matter to God. From His point of view you are less than a cockroach. Jesus died and shed his blood on the cross for those people who speak English. If you don’t see this yourself, you need to get right with God. He showed me these things because I am spiritual and I have faith in God and the King James Bible.

Hogwash!
Hogwash!
Hogwash!
Hogwash!
Hogwash!
Hogwash!

mioque · Sep 8, 2004

"Hogwash!"
''
Thank you Greg. That needed saying.

Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

David J New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator

DeclareHim New Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

mioque New Member

Useful Searches

Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree

AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

David J New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator Administrator

DeclareHim New Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

Craigbythesea Active Member

mioque New Member

Dr. Bob Administrator
Administrator