Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

This is a false argument. How in the world could the King James translators translate the RT into the KJB if the RT did not exist?

The fact is, the RT was all over Europe and Asia Minor, in hundreds if not thousands of churches from the second century onward. The vast number of extant texts support the RT, many scriptures that were translated into other languages support the RT, and many early writings of church fathers support the RT.

It was not a matter that the word of God did not exist. It was a matter of identifying the true scriptures. The 27 books of the NT were identified by about the fourth century. How could that have been done if they did not exist?

So, this is a very silly argument that anyone with the least common sense can see through immediately.

There were variants in the RT, most were very minor and in no way affected doctrine. That is to be expected when men copy scripture. But the KJB translators had many tests to sort out error. They were probably the greatest scholars of ancient languages ever assembled. They examined thousands of texts.

 

This is by faith

This is by scientific and scholarly evidence.

You totally missed my point of what I said. First, I was not making an argument. Also, the books were identified by the 2nd century. It was "official" in the 4th. I said the Scripture were available always, even before the "TR" or the KJV. Do you not agree with that statement, or do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Faith is not absolutely blind. If I were to believe the Greek myths, that would be blind faith, because there is no evidence for it at all. God gives us light, he gives us evidence.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I can see the creation around me, that is not faith. But I cannot see God. However, I can see the complexity and order of the creation which tells me there is a super intelligence behind it. If you want to call that scientific or scholarly evidence, fine, but that does not show me God. I have to believe in God by faith.

God said he would preserve his pure word. I believe that. I can look back at the history of the scriptures and see that it favors the RT. Does that prove it is inerrant and pure? No. I believe that by faith.

I do not believe the KJB translators were prophets, nor do I believe they in anyway thought of themselves like that. But I do believe that God was behind their work, and not only theirs, but those good men who came before them and gave their lives to give us the scriptures in English (and other languages).
I do not believe that after God spoke Revelation 22:21 to John that he withdrew into heaven and left us to ourselves. In fact, if you read the book of Revelation you see that God has a great deal of work to do in this world. I believe God has been and will control nations and the course of history. I believe he brought about the Reformation and the KJB, and that the English and Americans have taken the word of God to every nation and people on earth.

I believe God brought back Israel from extinction and placed them in their own land again as he promised many times. One hundred years ago folks scoffed at this or tried to spiritualize these scriptures. But we are fortunate to see it with our own eyes. God is still working in the world today if we are open to see it.

You might say, "Well, then God also brought about the MVs". Did he? The scriptures speak of a great "falling away" before the end. And trust me, we are near the end.

The MVs are Catholic. Read Revelations 17.

 

As I have said, you believe by BOTH faith and scientific and scholarly evidence. there is nothing wrong with that at all.

how are the MV's Catholic. What catholic had anything to do with the NASB, or the ESV? You make false statements. What catholic had anything to do with the KJV...oh, Erasmus.

 

The same holds true with respect to the CT.

Some copyists did a bit more than merely copy.They reinterpreted some texts that they felt didn't sound right,that harmonized better with other texts etc.

But far less than translators have at their disposal these days.

That's being a lot more generous than factual. Besides they didn't have access to texts that were discovered much later.

 

Then God was behind the versions that came after the KJV's also.

But for you to believe that God brought about the Reformation would mean that you also believe that God ordained the Calvinistic truths that the Reformation stood for (and that you so despise).You contradict yourself.

So you think that only the Brits and Americans are called to this task?

I believe that God has indeed brought about the modern versions.In no way does the publication of God's word lead to a great falling away.That's just utter nonsense.

Some MV's have been sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church. But even they testify to the truths of God as much as the KJV. John R.Rice even said so.

Most modern versions have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.You are just stating falsehood after falsehood in propogating your KJVO'ism.

 

Thanks jbh, but I'm not kjvo.

I also use the NKJV. In fact I'm really enjoying the NKJV Woman's Study Bible right now.

 

Yes, that is a possibility, but not necessarily true. God is not behind any corrupt texts, but corrupt texts have always existed from the earliest days.

What has been the fruit of the MVs? Were the MVs used to take the word of God to every continent and country on earth the way the KJB has been?

What have been the great revivals and movements produced by the MVs?

Have the MVs influenced literature?

The MVs cannot compare to the tremendous influence the KJB has had on history in the last 400 years. Anybody who says otherwise is fooling themselves. If anything, the MVs have introduced confusion and doubt into the church and into God's word. And God is not a God of confusion or doubt.

Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

Is God sovereign? Did He know the CT existed for the 1800 years the church didn't use it? Why would a sovereign God deliberately hide the so called "best manuscripts" for so long? Did He not want to build His church based on the very best copies of His word so that the church would have a solid foundation based on the written word of His witnesses?

Does that make any sense to you?

 

Every Bible or portion thereof after the original mss. were written is an MV.

Give the MV's 400 years and they will influence history also.

The influence of the KJV is a pea in the ocean compared to the influence of other language Bibles in history. The KJV has never been used to "take the word of God to every continent, (etc.") You would think that the Scriptures were written in English and the whole world understands English the way you talk. The fact is English is only fluently understood in maybe 8% of the world. According to National Geographic, "In the mid-20th century, nearly 9 percent of the world's population grew up speaking English as their first language. In 2050, the number is expected to be 5 percent." http://bit.ly/9rG2mp

Jesus wasn't talking about Bible versions in Matthew 7:20.

Perhaps the person being self-fooled is you.

 

The church didn't use the CT?? Then who did??

 

You are assuming that one or the other is "best". What if both are perfectly fine - neither inherently better than the other. In this case, God neither allowed the best to remain hidden, nor kept the best available. He simply allowed one to remain hidden that was fine and another to remain available that was fine.

So I agree with the idea that God wouldn't allow the "best" to remain hidden. I merely dispute the conclusion that either of them should be considered "best". My position (and that of most here who dispute that the KJV/NKJV are necessarily the best) is not that the CT is best, but that neither are "best" - that either are perfectly fine, neither to be considered better than the other.

Does that make sense?

EDIT: And FWIW, your sovereignty of God argument can also be used just as well to prove that the CT is not the "lesser" of the two texts. After all, if God is sovereign, wouldn't He prevent a worst text from ever being discovered at all? After all, the CT translations are overtaking the influence of the TR translations and if the CT is corrupt, then this represents a failure by God to preserve His word. Thus we can conclude that the CT is not a "lesser" text. Hence, both texts are to be considered acceptable - both represent God's sovereignty in preserving His word.

 

This is simply untrue. The TR did not exist till Erasmus put it together.

 

Notice he doesn't write TR, he writes about the "RT".

 

Surely he can't be that obtuse. The Received Text = Textus Receptus. One just happens to be the English form of the Latin title. And if he is holding that the TR is different from the RT, then NO English Bible comes from the supposed RT. Surely he can't be that obtuse!

 

Oh, my error.

 

They are now. the KJV has been around much longer. And it wasn't the KJV, but the Scriptures that had the power. The KJV was just the translation used.

None have been made by the KJV. That was just the trasnlation used. If the NASB had been around in 1611 instead of the KJV, there would have been no difference.

Your right, the modern versions(like the NASB in the 1970's and the ESV in 2001) can't compare. They haven't had time to. You are not even giving honest comparisons.

 

Oh good grief. I'm sure he was referring to the received text....RT.

 

The TR is not perfect. The CT is not perfect. The MT is not perfect. But in the superabundance of manuscripts is the Word of God preserved for scholars to find.

We use them all, compare them all and thereby have little trouble finding the Word of God.