Is KJVO unscriptural? (Topic started for 2 people)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DesiderioDomini, Feb 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will ask that others respect our wishes, and allow myself and mrs. wookie to have a one on one discussion. As long as it is just she and I, we will stay on topic, and I am excited to see what she has to say. PLEASE OPEN ANOTHER THREAD IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON OUR DISCUSSION.

    Now, to business. Mrs. Wookie, you believe that they KJV is perfect, and no other english translation is. I have a few questions as to how you came to that belief.

    1. When you say perfect, do you mean that it is word for word exactly what God inspired Paul, Peter, John, Matthew etc to write in the original autographs? Word for word, letter for letter, "every jot and tittle", or merely perfect in doctrine? Be very specific.

    2. What evidence is there that the KJV is a perfect reflection of what the biblical writers original wrote, since A) no 2 manuscripts agree 100%, B) Many readings from the KJV have almost zero greek support, and C) The KJV translators themselves made many statements indicating they did not believe that they had just created a perfect bible.

    3. There are minor differences in the various KJVs out there today. The 1611 does not look anything like the KJV used today. The Oxford has a few word changes from the Cambridge. Which KJV (publisher and date) is the "perfect KJV" that you speak of?

    I have others, and I dont need anyone else to help me here, so dont post answers or other questions PLEASE. Allow Mrs. Wookie to answer, and allow me to respond directly to her.

    Thank you for your gracious agreement, Mrs. Wookie. I trust you believe my questions are sincere and designed to find the truth.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    DD,

    Please be aware that your thread will not have any official protection. We do not operate protected threads here. Saying that you are free to request that others stay out and I hope they will comply with your wishes.

    This debate can become very heated very quickly. This discussion will still be liable to the general rules of the BB and the specific rules of the BV/T forum. Posts may be edited and the thread is subject to closure like any other thread.

    Roger
    C4K
    Moderator
     
  3. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely understand. However, Mrs. Wookie and I have both agreed to a civil discussion, and I would not be able to understand why a christian wouldnt respect the wishes of 2 people having a civil discussion. I hope they will respect that.

    We will make sure that there is no need for you to enforce any rules.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    In that case, and although I cannot promise a protected thread, I am making a moderator request that this thread be a limited discussion between DesiderioDomini and Mrs Woogie.

    I am also requesting that members DO NOT comment on the discussion in another thread.
     
  5. Mrs.Woogie

    Mrs.Woogie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for your post. If you don't mind, it will take me until tonight to give you a full repsonse to all of your questions.

    If there is anything else I need to put in here in order to keep this thread working properly mods, please let me know.

    I had to laugh when I read your post. Its Mrs Woggie, not Wookie. I guess either way they both sound quirky.

    I can atleast answer the first questions now. Yes, I believe that the KJV is pefect to every jot and tittle. Yes I believe it to be perfect especially in doctrine.

    For the C part of number 2 I can also quickly respond.
    "The KJV translators themselves made many statements indicating they did not believe that they had just created a perfect bible."
    This is hardly evidence on your part because not all authors of the books in scripture wrote that they had written an "inspiried" piece. It was declared inspired later, not at the time.


    I will respond to the other questions later.
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will save my response to these until you have responded fully.

    Take as long as you need. I cant believe I spelled it wrong! I am so sorry.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    Please read the particular rules for the BV/T forum posted here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2671.html

    The spirit of these rules is enforced as well as the letter.

    So far so good!
     
  8. SoulWinningLady

    SoulWinningLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is really strange. It is me Mrs. Woggie. Mods please compare my email address for verificarion. (its private so others cannot see it) I had signed up and never got an email about the Mrs. Woggie account, so I signed up again. When i logged on, I was mrs woggie. This morning when I logged in the board would not accept mrswooggie. So I hit the send my info to my email address button and this is what I got. I like this one better anyway, its more ME!
    SoulWinningLady AKA Mrs. Woggie.

    I believe the KJV is superior to all other English versions--superior in its textual basis, superior in its method of translation, superior in the scholarship of its translators, superior in the time of its translation. I am not one of those folks who believes that the KJV translators were “insprired” by the Holy Spirit making the KJV inspired over all other translations. Gods word was preserved through the generations and I believe it maintains its preservation through the KJV not though these other MV.




    Ps 12:6

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Ps 12:7

    Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Psalms 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

    Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



    The Word of God promised us preservation. I believe it. I believe that is evidence right there. When I first studied this out, I read those scriptures and began my “hunt” on which version was the “preserved” one. My conclusion was the KJV.


    There are minor spelling differences in various KJV’s out there. If you would like to bring up the minor differences you see between each publisher I am up for that. Most of the changes were “sound” changes such as wordes to words. Etc. There are so substance differences also such as “and” “of” and so forth. This in no way “changes” Gods word. I would say they are all perfectly preserved.



    Let me ask you few questions also.

    Which translation do you think is closest to perfection?
    Which translations have the most errors and why?
    How long have you studied manuscript evidence?
    THanks
    L
     
  9. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    OOPS--didn't see the OP!
    No--KJVO is not unscriptural!

    Why don't you have this discussion in PM? I thought this was a public forum--just a thought.
     
  10. TaterTot

    TaterTot
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    (I suggested that too, but they didnt feel comfortable doing that since he's a "he" and she's a "she")
     
  11. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well put! I would have to say that I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with anyone who believes the KJV is the best version. I disagree, but to me its much like our view of eschatology in that I have my belief, but I am not for certain, and I am not bothered by someone who disagrees, provided they allow for the disagreement. So, if you say "superior" and mean that you feel it is better, and its texts are better, I disagree, but I have no problem with that claim.

    You say you believe God's word has been preserved in the KJV and not in the MVs. Do you have any evidence attesting to this, or is it simply a personal conviction? Let me explain: If there is evidence, then this fact will make it binding to all english speaking christians. However, if it is simply a personal conviction, then do you feel other english speaking christians are bound to it? Why or why not?

    I love this passage as well. Before I comment on its meaning, I must ask you this: Are you aware of the footnote placed in the KJV 1611 by the KJV translators regarding this verse? If not, I will inform you. If so, would you comment on the reliability of that footnote, and what you think it means?

    I agree that God promised to preserve his word for us. However, I do not understand how that fact can be seen as "evidence" that he did so in the KJV. None of those verses mentioned the KJV. I believe it is a good translation, though.

    I guess I must ask this: Do you feel that the KJV is simply the "best" translation, or that it is the ONLY translation that should be used by english speaking christians? Please, be as specific as possible.

    In order to comment on this, I must ask you what do you feel is a "change"? I would agree that a spelling change is of no consequence at all, but if any other words or wordings are different, do you feel this constitutes a "change"? If you need examples, I will provide them.

    Thank you so much for your honest and straightforward responses! I think our discussion will be used by God to educate many people on how to discuss this issue without anger or spite! I encourage you to keep it up! I also think our manner of discussion will allow others to understand our respective views without distraction!

    Now, I answer your questions.

    Interestingly worded HAHA! I feel the NASB 95 is the most accurate representation of that was originally penned by the inspired writers. However, I dont think "perfection" is even in the picture for any one translation. Since in my opinion there is no direct evidence to conclusively prove which text type (alexandrian or byzantine) is the most accurate in each instance, I feel that God has preserved his perfect word through many translations. I feel it is our job to rely on the Holy Spirit to show us in those instances where the original reading is unclear which one is accurate. I have a article written to explain my view in detail, and if you want it, I will send it to you via PM.

    I am not sure how to answer this. I would feel versions such as the NWT and Joseph Smith's translation have the most errors because many of their readings have no textual support at all. I do not view paraphrases at translations, so the message and living bible would not be considered. As far as english versions normally used by "christians", I do not like the NRSV and I feel it is a poor translation because it takes too much liberty in too many places in my opinion.

    Most likely not as long as you. I am 26, and I have been studying manuscript evidence since I was 18, so a little more than 8 years. I have done quite a bit of research on the subject because I am so interested in it. However, I am always open to learning from those who have been at it longer than I!

    Thank you again for your Christ-like attitude! God bless you this day! [​IMG]
     
  12. SoulWinningLady

    SoulWinningLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very well put! [/QUOTE]
    Thank you.


    The bible does not come out and say USE THE KJV, we all know that. The same thing goes for the trinity, however, we can look at the verses and see what God says about that paticular doctrine or situation. The evidence is in God's word. He told us he would preserve His word and I believe that. That is my evidence.
    To find the truth was a personal conviction, but after finding the truth, it no longer becomes personal, it becomes the truth. I hope this makes sense. Do I believe Christians are bound to it? No. Christians don't HAVE to read the KJV however I believe that Christians who don't study out of it can be steered in the wrong direction when studing deep doctrinal issues. I believe anyone can get saved out of other versions as long as the verses are pretty much the same. For instance, I used my old Catholic Dunya Rhimes to win my brother to the Lord. I showed him that it says in there BORN AGAIN. I would not have done that with todays MV of the Catholic bible because its not in there.

    Post them and I will reply to what you post.

    I agree that God promised to preserve his word for us. However, I do not understand how that fact can be seen as "evidence" that he did so in the KJV. None of those verses mentioned the KJV. I believe it is a good translation, though.[/QUOTE]
    You agree that God did promise to preserve His word. Which bible is closest to His "preservation" in the Engligh language? No it does not say KJV. That is when its up to us to read and find the truth. Which one is it because you and I both believe that God promised this. One of the English bibles must be superior to the others right?

    I think I already answered this above.

    Please provide examples


    Which translation do you think is closest to perfection?
    How would it be preservation if many verses are "unclear" Do you mean in error?

    Agreed

    I am glad to hear that you have studied.

    Thank you for yours. I am hoping as this moves along the spirit can remain Christ like.
     
  13. SoulWinningLady

    SoulWinningLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was going to edit my message but I guess you don't have too long for that.
    I had 2 other question I wanted to add.
    Since you agree that God has promised to preserve His Word through all generations, then

    1. Where was the English Bible up until Westcott and Hort produced their Greek Text which all the modern versions are translated or based from.

    2. If the WH Greek text is God's Word, then why is there so much variation between the two 2 Greek manuscripts upon which it is based?

    Just add these in with my last post. Sorry, I did not know I could not go back in and add to the posts.

    Thanks
    S~
     
  14. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, here is what you have shown: God promised to preserve his word. I AGREE!!! Now, the question remains, what evidence is there that he preserved it in the KJV? I believe that God preserved his word through many translations. What evidence is there that he even promised to preserve his word in one volume? I think these are legitimate questions, and they need specific answers. I dont think we can say "God promised to preserve is word, and though he didnt tell us where or how, I THINK it is the KJV, so that is my evidence."
    Here is the problem, I can say the same thing about any other translation, and I would have the exact amount of evidence for it as you do. DO you have any evidence that points towards the KJV?
    Would you provide me an example of how I will be steered wrong by using the NASB 95? Please be very specific.

    Please be clear, are you saying that todays catholic bible does not say you must be born again, or that todays MVs do not say you must be born again? To clarify, by MV lets use the NIV and NASB.

    The note is as follows:
    "Heb.him, I. Euery one of them"
    That note is in reference to the 2nd "them" in Psalm 12:7. Compare the KJV reading to that of several other translations before it:
    As you can see, nearly every translation committee, INCLUDING the KJV translators, believed that this verse was speaking of PEOPLE, and not words, since the Hebrew here literally says "him". Do you disagree with the KJV transltors in this instance, or were you aware of their stance on this verse?

    Here is a table which shows dozens of changes between the 1611 KJV and the present KJV.
    KJVO revisions

    Do you feel these constitute changes or not? If no, could you explain why not?

    No, I mean that there are many readings in which it is unclear which one is the original. In many cases, the KJV chose readings that have almost ZERO support from greek manuscripts. In order for those readings to be authentic, God's word must have disappeared from its original language for over 1000 years. An example of this is 1 John 5:7-8. If this passage is real, then it disappeared completely without a trace from the greek manuscript record, meaning that God did not preserve his word for those he originally gave it to! Many claim that the byzantine text is the preserved word, but the byzantine record does not contain this reading in its texts body save for 2 manuscripts. I do not believe that this passage was written by John for his epistle, I believe it is CLEAR that it was added later. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

    I think you mean which greek text were they based on, and that would be several greek texts based on mainly the byzantine texts. Erasmus' texts went through several editions, along with Stephanus/Beza and others. They were very close, but did have glaring differences, such as 1 John 5:7-8, which was not in Erasmus' first 2 editions, and he seriously doubted its authenticity. So the answer to your question is the TR, but I want to make it clear that there are MANY DIFFERENT TRs, and the one used today is not a true greek text, it is merely a reverse translation of the KJV. Are you aware of this fact?

    OK, we need to get something clear here. I never claimed that the W&H text is "God's word". I did not claim it was perfect in any way. I do not believe it is.

    The 2 manuscripts disagree so much because there are no 2 maunscripts which agree 100%.

    I must ask you, are you aware that the various byzantine manuscripts disagree greatly as well?

    Are you aware that many of the readings in the KJV disagree with almost every greek manuscript in existence?

    How can the KJV be God's word when it disagrees with almost every greek manuscript in 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37, and others.

    In fact, many Muslims use 1 John 5:7-8 as a tool to disprove christianity. Since so many christians want to keep that verse because of what it says, and have no idea what the manuscript evidence for the verse is, muslims show people that we care so little about truth that we include a verse that goes against VIRTUALLY ALL EVIDENCE IN EXISTENCE. I have seen many people leave christianity because of this argument, since the only way to refute it is to show that the verse doesnt actually belong in the bible.

    Great discussion! Keep it up, I think it will be very edifying for many people!

    Thanks to everyone else for allowing us this discussion in public. I really appreciate it!
     
  15. SoulWinningLady

    SoulWinningLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the KJV lacks the errors that MV have.
    Where is your evidence for what you believe? How is God’s word preserved in many translations that have serious errors in them? Is that really preservation? Are you saying that God preserved his Word with errors in it?

    I weighted the errors against each other and came up with the KJV as the winner.

    Leviticus 6:21 NASV: "... as a soothing aroma to the Lord." KJV: "for
    a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Whoever heard of soothing a sovereign
    God?) The same is found in Leviticus 8:28, 17:6, and 23:18.

    1 Kings 19:12 NASV: "... a sound of a gentle blowing." KJV: "... a
    still small voice." (In the English language, there's a vast
    difference between "a gentle blowing" and "a still small voice!" I'm
    sure the reader will agree.)

    I Kings 20:38 NASV: "... with a bandage over his eyes." KJV: "... with
    ashes upon his face." (In English, "ashes" and "bandage" are two
    different words entirely.)

    Isaiah 53:10 NASV: "... If He would render Himself as a guilt
    offering." KJV: "... When thou Shalt make his soul an offering for
    sin..." (This is completely ridiculous!)

    Hosea 11:12 NASV: "... Judah is also unruly against God, Even against
    the Holy one who is faithful." KJV: "... but Judah yet ruleth with
    God, and is faithful with the saints.' SERIOUS ERROR here!
    I have about 30 verses in the NT that I can add. I will just wait to see your responses before I post all those scriptures. It can be overwhelming for you!



    YES, I am saying that todays Catholic Bible does not say Born again and my 1940’s bible does. My point is that I do believe that one can be saved through another version.
    Now, you say that you have been studing for 8 years and nearly ALL the translators state this? I don’t believe it.
    The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648).
    This same blessed statement on preservation was affirmed by Baptists in the London Confession of 1677 and the Philadelphia of 1742. Men of God in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries believed in divine preservation AS IT APPLIED TO THE SCRIPTURES THEY POSSESSED IN THE MASORETIC HEBREW AND THE GREEK RECEIVED TEXT
    You are saying you agree that God’s word is preserved then you claim that this verse says God did not promise to preserve His word. Either He did or He did not. If this verse is not good enough as evidence then one should use other verses to back up the claims. There are other verses in the bible that claim that God would preserve the scriptures.
    The bottom line here Does the bible teach that God will preserve the Scriptures?

    I do not believe that these changes effect the actual meaning of the verse. The changes here hardly compare to what the NIV and the NASB has done to the Word of God. See my above post.

    You are incorrect about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). ["I John 5.7," The Dean Burgon News 5 (1979); 1.]
    So, are you saying that the KJV translators forged this verse?


    First of all, you never answered this questions. I am asking where was the English Bible up until WH produced their Greek Text? Was it “preserved”?????
    There are over 5,000 extant mss and partial mss that are very very close in their wording. The glaring diferences are found in the two faulty mss that WH used to create their Greek Text.

    Compare 1 Tim 3:16 in NASB and the KJV.
    NASB By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.
    KJV 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
    What is the major difference between these 2 versions??????????????


    You need to make it perfectly clear then, DID God promise to preserve the Scriptures or not? Is His Word Perfect? If it is NOT perfect, how then can you claim that God preserved His word?

    I am really enjoying this. I hope you find this fruitful DD.

    S~
     
  16. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is exactly where the problem comes up. Upon what standard or rule or criteria are you basing these "errors"? How do you know they are errors?

    My evidence is in the fact that due to several glaring errors, its various revisions, and its poor textual choices, the KJV is not a perfect translation. I believe that although no one single translation is perfect, the entire word of God is in our hands. There are additions, but nothing is missing. I do not believe God inspired errors, but he did allow them so that we would have to rely on the Holy Spirit for his word. I wrote an article explaining this on another board, I will include a link to it in a PM.

    And that is your right and privilidge. What I am asking for is some conclusive evidence as to why all the others are wrong when they disagree. We will discuss this in one case further down this post.

    Here is what I would like to see. How do you know that the KJV translated these correctly? In these, I see no misleading, even if I acknowledge a vast difference. The others are another story, however.

    Here again we have the same issue. I must ask, on what basis are you claiming an error? How do YOU KNOW that the KJV is correct? It seems to me that you blindly accept the KJV by faith, and that is fine. However, do you know if there is a textual variant here? Do you know if the translators were even sure of how to translate this passage? Do you read Hebrew?

    Let it be known I am not mocking you. I am simply trying to acertain as to what evidence you have that the KJV is correct? This is what we have all been waiting for.

    I acknowledge that the versions are different. What I would like to see is when you post verses that read differently, also posting some evidence to support your claim that the KJV is correct. Simply assuming it is is the main reason why this debate is so heating and annoying for many people. The KJVO simply assumes the KJV is correct, and requires everyone else to do so as well. I will ask that you rise above that, and explain WHY you feel the KJV is correct. I trust you will rise to the occasion!

    given that I just showed you several trusted translations, and the note from the KJV translators, how can you not believe it? Lets be clear on what you "dont believe" here: Do you NOT believe that this note was in the KJV 1611? DO you not believe that they knew this verse was discussing people? I need you to be very clear here if you can.

    I agree that they believed that. I disagree that the TR, which was changed several times and finally back translated from the KJV into Greek. However, I dont accept the word of these men as official doctrine. I am accountable to God on my own, and as such, I am required to "test all things". This is what I believe I am doing now: the idea of KJVO does not make sense to me, so I am testing it. As such, I believe that God will provide conclusive evidence, through you or someone else, of its veracity. This is what God did with the Bereans, and I believe he still does it today. Therefore, if KJVO is true, then you will be able to find the evidence that no one else has provided to support your position. So far, the main problem remains that KJVO simply assume the KJV is correct, and require all others to do the same in discussion. That is why we never get anywhere. I have faith that you shall rise above!

    EXACTLY!!!!! I have shown that this verse IS NOT ONE OF THEM. However, I do believe there are other verses which CLEARLY state that God will preserve his word.
    An example is: Isaiah 40:8 8The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.
    I have shown that even the KJV translators wrote that this verse is refering to PEOPLE. I would like you to either acknowledge this, or show why you believe I am incorrect. I encourage you to seek out a KJV 1611, check the margin note, and see for yourself if you feel I have fabricated it.

    Are you aware of what you just said? Did you know that "mg" means that the verse is added in the margin? Lets go over the evidence you just provided.

    "61" is a 16th century manuscript, has no record of its origin, and is believed to be a fabricated manuscript created to force Erasmus to include the comma. Even if that isnt true, it is still at best a 15th century manuscript. How much weight should that carry, being 1500 years removed from the original?

    629 is a 14th/15th century parallel latin and greek manuscript, so this was probably copied from a Latin manuscript. Even if it wasnt, I think it is clear that it came from the Latin exemplar, and not the greek exemplar.

    Neither 61 nor 629 have the entire comma in the manuscript. Several words are missing.

    88 is a 12th century manuscript and 429 a 14th, and contains the addition in the margin. Why is it not contained in the text if it was authentic? I think it is clear that this passage was added in from the latin in both of these manuscripts.

    636 is a 15th century manuscript, but the addition is in the margin, and the addition is dated in the 19th century!

    918 is a 15th century manuscript, almost 1500 years removed from the original


    110 (Tisch. w 110), which is a 16th century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text.

    221 is from the 10th century, but only contains the comma in the margin. Why is it not in the body of the text?

    2318 is an 18th century manuscript, which means it was written after the KJV. I cant see how this manuscript can carry ANY weight whatsoever.

    That makes 9, not 20. I have already shown how each of these manuscripts cannot be trusted due to their late date, or the fact that the addition is not in the text.

    There are over 500 other manuscripts of 1 John 5 which do not have any trace of the comma. How can we take the word of 9 manuscripts with untrustable background and date over 500 EARLIER manuscripts?

    The lexionaries dated around the 10th century. They carry little weight IMO against ALL THE GREEK EVIDENCE.

    Of those church fathers, even most KJVO will admit that it is unclear what Cyprian is talking about, and that he is not quoting the Comma. Have you actually look at his quote?

    It is admitted even by KJVO that claiming Jerome quoted this verse is at best a guess. It is known that Jerome's work was edited by a later hand, so it is not conclusive that this quote is the work of Jerome.

    I am unaware of Augustines quote on this verse. I will need you to post it so that I can research it. Please post a link of reference for me.

    I agree that both Priscillian and Tertullian quoted the verse, but neither came until the 4th century.

    Upon all this, how can we take the word of a couple of lexionaries, a couple of later church fathers, and a few late untrustable manuscripts against over 500 other EARLIER manuscripts, (including nearly all the byzantine manuscripts) and the fact that neither Sabellian nor Arian mentioned it in their debates, and NO OTHER TRANSLATION (peshitta, coptic, syriac, etc) besides the latin has any record of this passage.
    One thing has to be true here: Either this passage is spurious, or God did not preserve his word to the greeks, since this reading disappeared without a trace from the entire greek manuscript record for 1000 years.
    NO! I am saying that whoever copied the Latin manuscripts forged it, which is the only way to explain why it is wanting in every other early version. the KJV translators simply included it because Erasmus did, and Erasmus included it on the basis of ONE GREEK MANUSCRIPT dated from the 16th century. I believe he simply made an error of judgment.

    Yes, it was preserved. Almost all of the differences in the 2 text types is ADDITIONS in the byzantine. All those that are not additions, I have not seen one that is of any importance at all, included the one you have included below, 1 tim 3:16. God's word was still preserved, but had several additions to it, which need to be weeded out. I think I have shown clear evidence of one of those instances.

    I would love to know the difference between "God" and "He who". However, I prefer the reading "God" but I dont see how replacing it with a pronoun changes anything. "He who" is God. Who else does Paul claim was manifested in the flesh? Is there anyone else that Paul could have been refering to? I am unaware of any evidence to support any claim other than "God". Replacing a proper noun with a pronoun is of little consequence to me. I grew up reading the NIV, and I always understood this verse to mean "God was manifested in the flesh", even though it said "he who" because it is absolutely clear.

    I believe it has been preserved from the 1st day it was written. That is why I reject KJVO, since many of its readings have almost 0 support from the greek manuscripts, which is the language the NT was originally penned.

    God's word IS PERFECT, but that does not mean the KJV is. Until you provide evidence attesting to the fact that the KJV is perfect, and not merely assumed as such, how can I take this when all the evidence points against that claim?

    May I ask you the following?

    1. What evidence do you have that God promised to preserve his word in English in a perfect translation in one volume?

    2. If you do have evidence of the above, what evidence do you have that the KJV is that volume?

    3. If you are unable to provide evidence of the above, how do you know that the KJV is perfect? Is it simply a conviction of faith, and not a demonstrable fact?

    Once again, I thank you for your discussion. I enjoy a friendly debate. I know God will use this as we sharpen each other. God bless you this day!
     
  17. SoulWinningLady

    SoulWinningLady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets get down to the nitty gritty here shall we? If we cannot agree on preservation and perfect, I believe this will just be completly fruitless.
    I am just going to start with this first quote because I believe if we cannot get an understanding here, we won't get it further down the page.
    You claim that 3 things.
    God preserved His word.
    God's Word claims that He preserved His word.
    God's Word is not perfect.
    I have a BIG problem with understanding this. If God "preserved" His Word, then why do you claim it is not perfect? If you have a piece of nice furniture, lets say an Oak Dining room table you made and you want to preserve it, this would mean that you would not want ANY scratches on it anywhere. You would not "allow" any scratchs on it anywhere. If it did have scratches on it, it would not be worth as much.
    How can God's word be preserved with errors in it? You are saying that God allowed errors that were not "insprired". So, now he has parts of His word that are not inspirired and parts that are insprired. Why would a perfect, just, and Mightly God allow errors?
    This is the major differance why we cannot agree. This is what it boils down to.
     
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to have the link too if possible.I would like to see this "evidence" you speak of.
     
  19. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off, you have misunderstood me. I said the KJV has errors, I did not say the word of God contains errors. I believe the word of God is present and preserved on the planet today. I simply do not believe that the KJV encompasses that perfection. I have shown how one verse included in the KJV goes against everything the KJVO claim is important, that we should not take a few manuscripts which have (in their opinion the alexandrian manuscripts, IMO all those which contain the comma) questionable origins.

    I think the link I sent you explained it very clear. The word of God does not have to be present in one volume to be preserved. If God intended for us, by the leading of the Holy Spirit to be able to find his word by comparing various translations and texts, and come to a conviction as to what his word says, then the doctrine of preservation is achieved. God has not lied.

    We do not disagree on perservation in any way, save for the fact that you believe it is preserved in one volume, the KJV, and I believe it is preserved in many volumes, and must be found through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    So, I think we are clear on this, so you may commence with your response to my statements and questions at your leisure.

    Thanks again!
     
  20. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I forgot to explain also: Since you claim the KJV is perfect, yet you also admit that it originally contained errors of grammar and spelling, how can you claim that God inspired the KJV, when he allowed for the errors he did?

    Did God create a perfect bible, then refuse to preserve it through the printing process, thereby leaving the common man still without a perfect bible for another 150 years? Please explain how this is not a double standard.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...