My responses

Oh? Please show us how and where the message has been changed. Do any of the modern translations teach something different than the basic doctrines of Christianity? Do any teach Jesus wasn't born of a virgin? Do any teach that He didn't conquer death and emerge from the grave? Do any teach that He isn't coming back? Surely, if these alleged changes exist, you can give us specific examples rather than merely a blanket and generalized accusation...

 

How many times are you going to misrepresent the late Dr. B. B. Warfield, in this? Doesn't your Bible say anything about "not bearing false witness"? Mine mentions this 'no false witness' commandment is at least seven different places. (Ex.20:16; Lev.19:11; Deut.5:20; Mt.19:18; Mk.10:45; Lk.18:20; Rom.13:9) Ya' might wanna look 'em up, sometime. They are from a King James! [FTR, I'll repeat this, here. The KJV, of the 1769 flavor, changes the wording (and not just the spelling) of Lev. 19:11 from the KJV of 1611!]

You first made this charge on the thread titled "Slandering God" over six months ago. Not only were some of your supposed facts wrong, even then (which both franklinmonroe and I corrected), franklinmonroe specifically showed this to be a misrepresentation of the late Dr. Warfield, and others. (BTW, didn't Jesus say something once about God saying when someone does something to "the least of these, my brethren, you have done it to me" back in Matt. 25:40? I note that that can specifically be found in the KJV, NKJV, KJ21, KJ-1611, YLT, DAR, ASV, TNT, COV, BISH, GEN, RSV, WEBS, WES- NT, & AMP, just for starters, and in very slightly different wording with the exact same effect in the NIV, NASB, HCSB, NCV, WYC, RV, BBE, D-R, NRSV, & ESV. That's more than 2 dozen different versions and/or editions of Scripture. I didn't find one that condoned this practice, FTR.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=53606&highlight=Warfield;+inspiration

Moving right along, however, a month ago, you repeat it in this thread, in your post #16.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=55941&highlight=Warfield;+inspiration

This time, C4K (who, BTW, took time from his Christmas break specifically to refute the attack on Warfield) and Deacon, show that Dr. Warfield was of the strongest of defenders of inspiration, while I did simply did not get into that part of the discussion, due to a loss of power when my computer crashed. I did not have the time to re-compose a good rebuttal, and also the two afore-mentioned posters had already done a good job of refuting the attack on Dr. Warfield (whose name you had misspelled multiple times, FTR). I had already replied in post #23, to demonstrate that roughly 80% of your post #16, that touched on the subject was either an attack on the Bible, an attack on the translators of the Bible, or a pawning off of one's personal opinion, as fact. Maybe it's just me, but I find none of those three things particularly appealing.

Now, here we are again. With apologies to that great American philosopher, 'Yogi' Berra, "It's Deja-Moo (a.) all over again."

Here are some actual facts. In 1881, the RV and the W/H NT both were published. In 1881, Dr. B. B. Warfield was only in his 3rd year as an instructor (not even yet, or just 'barely' a Professor, as I'm not sure of exactly when this 'promotion took place) at Western Seminary, at the age of 30, has received his doctorate the previous year, and although he had begun writing articles almost as soon as he became an instructor, and was already starting to ascend in his academic stature, co-authored his most significant thing to yet be published, a joint article with A. A. Hodge (of Princeton) strongly arguing for the defense and full inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.

This one article, more than any other thing, brought Warfield to the forefront, and led to his being appointed as Professor, and to the Chair at Princeton Seminary, upon the unexpected sudden death of A. A. Hodge some 6 years later, in 1887, where he would remain until his own death in 1921, at the age of 69.

It is also significant that the departure of Princeton and the Presbyterian Church- USA, from the strong historic orthodoxy of Alexander, Charles and A. A. Hodge, Warfield, Patton, et al., did not happen until after Warfield's death, where even the presence of the stalwarts and defenders of inspiration at Princeton, such as (formerly) Patton, Machen, Allis, Wilson, van Til, Vos, Stonehouse, & Murray, was not enough to prevent the shift in that institution, and the Presbyterian Church, away from the historic roots, after the death of Warfield, and the above, with the exception of Patton (already 87 and several years retired) & Vos, departed Princeton, to found Westminster Seminary, under the leadership of Machen.

My young friend, you have chosen to use the handle of stilllearning for the BB. May I suggest that you consider that just maybe the best place to accomplish your stated aim, is not by looking for instant answers on someone's web-site, who has an agenda to push, and has cited selected bits that purport to 'prove' their point.

Ed

(a.) Deja-Moo - That distinct feeling you've heard this Bull before.

 

THAT made reading this whole thread almost worthwhile.

:laugh:

 

That's great!! I agree with Mexdef - that made all this crap (can I say crap??) almost worthwhile!

Deja-Moo - I've got to remember that!

 

Was it preserved in 1610, when an MV came alongside the "established" version?

Careful not to mess up your shoes when you get yourself painted in the corner.

 

Good question!

 

On what basis? Can you show us the verse that claims that?

But the Anglican Version does not mirror ANY one edition of the TR.....

How can a perfect translation of imperfect MSS be had short of secondary inspiration?

 

Oh,I'm sorry... Was I supposed to clear it with you BEFORE I asked the question?

 

How could the MV of 1611 be an improvement over the earlier versions?

 

So choose your 'test verses'. Thousands of changes were made. Why did the 1611 MV mess with God's preserved word?

My MV (1982) has - 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.'

Thats what I call 'messing.'

 

Messing with the bible?


The lack of Greek support for that passage debunks that notion..

 

Here are three errors in the above post. Each of the three errors are the quotation of a verse. I don't see how one can have a scriptural 'proof' without quoting the three Bibles involved PROPERLY.

1Jn 5:7 (The Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:7 (NASB):
For there are three that testify: 8a the Spirit

Footnote: 5:8a: A few late mss add " ... in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. . and there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit ... "

1Jn 5:7 (KJV1611 Edition):
For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

a I hope I can avoid being judgmental, but these three misquotes might well be an attempt to hide that 1 John 5:7 (one passage by itself) proves my signature/trailer:

 

Not at all. (I'm going to ignore the sarcasm intended in your response, BTW.) But considering I had already politely requested that robycop3 and askjo (a.) abide by the posted rules every one of us, who are members of the Baptist Board have already agreed to abide by, simply by joining the Baptist Board, and (b.) made this a personal request from one who does not normally read the "Fighting Fundamentalist Forum", it would have been extremely inconsistent for me not to have made the same request of any other, as well, do you not think?

Why would you expect that I should show partiality, in my request? FTR, you have been a BB member for some 9 mos. by now, if my memory serves, and I will presume you have read a few posts on the BB, likely including a couple that have been made by me. Do I usually appear to personally hold one to one standard, and personally hold another to a defferent standard, here, in my responses on the BB?

Just wonderin'.

Incidentally, I do have one specific question for you. What is it that is making you so "Red-face" angry, here? ~ 2/3 of your posts have the 'angry' icon in the heading to your responses, I have noticed, or 15 of 22, to be exact. You have already, in a grand total of 22 posts used this response icon more than I ever have used it, in 7800 posts over 3 years.

I really am curious to know if there is some source of such anger, or are you simply expecting each and every person to automatically be in agreement with whatever you may have posted, be thinking, or be posting, in advance?

Ed

 

So His word was not already preserved before 1611? If it was already preserved long before 1611 how can the changes in the KJV possibly be an improvement?

 

Bibliolatry/bibliolaters tend to make one that way...