New book for me

Personally, I do not think I have my head "stuck in a hole in the sand" but whatever ...

I have personally counted more than 45 different references and allegations to either "Jesuit" or "Jesuits" in the total of fewer than 175 posts you have made on the Baptist Board. That works out to a better than 1 in 4 ratio. FTR, I do not recall ever saying one thing 'positive' about the Society of Jesus in well over 8500 posts. I just don't see the need to bring some reference to any particular group into virtually every post I make.

Included among these are completely unsubstantiated insinuations that both Ed Edwards and EdSutton, among so many others, are somehow Jesuit infiltrators or spies, with the additional allegation/implication that you have some sort of e-book that details my own supposed involvement in this.

What nonsense.

Oh yeah! BTW, you made that allegation here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1428044&postcount=91

Hence, my attempted humor about "Jesuiphobia" and you.

You might be interested to also learn that the "pew Bibles" in my own home church happen to be KJV. Given that I can compare, while sitting in the pew, I generally carry an NKJV, while at church, although I will sometimes carry my own KJV, as well. Incidentally, I did vote to purchase the KJV Bibles, when we decided to purchase pew Bibles, for our church.

Oh yeah. We also happen to be a "SB Country Church" although I do wonder exactly how you apparently know that most other "SB" churches are compromising on Scripture?

I will also add that I suspect you will have to search far and wide to find me supporting any of the six BIle translators you mentioned.

However, I do kinda' take offense at the implication that all Bible translators are of any similar tendencies, as I personally know four modern day translators, for whom this sort of allegation is entirely undeserved, including one of my Bible College roommates from 40 years ago.

Enough is enough with the remarks, especially when I have multiple times corrected some supposed 'facts' you have posted.

I do not care about the personal preferences of any, but I do care when one publishes false statements.

Ed

 

Please note that through all his stuff, Pilgrim posts absolutely *NO* Scriptural support for KJVO.

He CAN'T, cuz there ISN'T ANY!

Therefore, KJVO cannot be true.

 

Some people have to have things spelled out for them or they refuse to believe it.

There are more than just a few evidences of a departing away from the KJV in the lives of many who no longer live godly.

The Scriptures you're looking for to support standing on the KJV are Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

Now, prove that it isn't. use credible proofs. use specific comparisons with authentic references other than your mouth.

 

Burden of proof is on you side and all we have seen so far is that WE "no longer live godly because we have departed from the KJV".

But then, I'm just a "martyr"- what do I know?

You have no credibility as far as I am concerned. Not that it matters, you will continue to call names and denigrate others.

Hasta luego.

 

so, um, what are u trying to say?

that those who are KJB-Only don't do ungodly things, like, say, practise multiple divorces or commit suicide?

pls explain.

let's start at Genesis 1:1--No, it does absolutely nothing to "support standing on the KJV." in fact, the KJB's not even mentioned--not King, not James, not Bible, not Only, zilch, nuffin ...

try the next verse. still nothing.

try the next one. nothing yet.

keep going till Rev. 22:21--good luck to u! :thumbs:

so, isn't it far better to stop that Edenic hissing of "Yea hath God said" and simply accept His Word in the form He meant it to be?

 

swing and a miss.

The same Scriptures are found in every valid Bible version. And not one of'em mentions the KJV, not even in the KJV itself.

Wanna try again?

 

I would like for you to prove to me from the KJB where there is Scriptural support for texual criticism?

Also prove to me from the KJB scriptural support that God only preserved His Word in the originals?

Thank you.

God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

Because believers do not agree with claims of the man-made KJV-only view is not valid evidence for claiming that they are "critics of the KJV." I have read over 100 books written by KJV-only advocates. I have obtained copies of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and have been examining them. I have studied the claims and reasoning offered for the KJV-only view. Your assumption that believers who disagree with your KJV-only view have not studied and considered your view's claims is incorrect.

 

God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would also indicate the original language text of the law. Since the Scriptures indicated the positive that preservation would be in the original languages, it did not need to state the negative that preservation did not relate directly to translations. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could also not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ’s comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also seem to refer to Moses’ writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles was in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16). Homer Massey affirmed: “God has preserved His Word in the languages in which it was originally written” (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Jan., 1981, p. 2). In his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus wrote: “Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod), corresponding to the English i” (p. 100). Broadus noted: “No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle, --in the Greek ‘horn,‘ --denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded. Compare Luke 16:17. The word ’horn’ in this sense would not be understood among us, and so ’tittle’ (a very small object) was wisely used by Wycliffe, and retained by all subsequent translators” (p. 100). Marvin Vincent affirmed that “jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet” (Word Studies, I, p. 40).

Even some KJV-only authors acknowledge that Matthew 5:18 refers to the original languages. D. A. Waite wrote: “Technically, Bible preservation has its primary meaning for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ’Words’ and not in varying languages” (Bob Jones, p. 19). KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “The Lord Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:18), and this refers specifically to the Hebrew language” (Faith, p. 175). Cloud described the jot as the “tenth and smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet” and the tittle as “a tiny part of a Hebrew letter; in particular it is that part that distinguishes the daleth from the resh” (p. 175). In his Way of Life Encyclopedia, Cloud defined jot as “the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet” (p. 216) and tittle as “tiny marks used to distinguish between letters in the Hebrew alphabet“ (p. 437). Waite’s Defined KJB indicated that jot referred to the “smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet” (p. 1262). D. A. Waite noted that the tittle “is the smallest distinguishing feature between two Hebrew letters” (Foes, p. 41). Gary Webb also asserted that “in Matthew 5:18 Jesus clearly refers to the Hebrew text since ‘jots’ and tittles’ are found in Hebrew, not Greek” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 49). In this same book, Thomas Corkish wrote: “A ‘jot’ or ‘tittle’ is smaller than any concept, individual commandment, or even one word, and refers to the minutia of the Hebrew text” (p. 147).

After quoting Matthew 5:18, KJV-only pastor Keith Gomez asserted that “Not only the spelling of every word will remain, but the singular and plural will remain” (Northwest News, Spring, 2009, p. 3). Do some KJV-only advocates think that Matthew 5:18 teaches a completely active preservation by God in the sense that every jot and tittle of each and every individual word is protected by continual supernatural acts that prevent any possibility of human error in copying the words? Do they imply that this same-type active preservation must also be in only one English translation so that its every individual letter and part of a letter are also perfectly preserved? If preservation was intended to apply to translations, does the KJV-only view imply that God failed in His design or purpose for preservation in the Holy Spirit’s guiding of the pre-1611 English translators? If “every-jot-and-title” preservation is claimed for the KJV, it is clear that present KJV editions [except for the reprints of the 1611 edition] do not preserve perfectly every individual letter and part of every letter found in the 1611 edition.

When the Bible specifies one thing, it automatically eliminates everything else. Thus, this scripture passage in Matthew would seem to eliminate stating or even implying that the preservation is to be found in English. Does not the KJV-only view in effect change the languages in which the Scriptures are preserved from the original languages to only the language of a translation without any scriptural authority for that change? Is the attempt to change the languages involved in the preservation of the Scriptures an act with or without Scriptural authority? What is the primary meaning of Matthew 5:17-18? These verses refer directly and primarily to fulfillment of Scripture and not to perfect copying or translating. These verses do not actually say that God would miraculously keep scribes from all errors in copying, printers from all errors in printing, and translators from all errors in translating of God's Word. Can KJV-only advocates name any Hebrew manuscripts that God has allowed to be preserved as being every jot and tittle perfect?

Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would have important implications that relate to the doctrine of preservation. These verses were important instructions and warnings given concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important part of preservation. These instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of accurate copies of the Scriptures. In addition, a logical deduction from these verses would affirm that copies would need to be examined or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made and that nothing was omitted. These verses would imply that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. When these verses are applied secondarily to translations, they would indicate that a translation could and should be corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages whenever that translation adds to, takes away, or diminishes by a poor, misleading, or inaccurate rendering. That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for evaluating translations of the Scriptures would seem to be a valid implication or deduction drawn from those verses.

 

I'm still not robycop3 but much of this was already answered by me in post #79 here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1427987&postcount=79

And your response, while completely ignoring any substantive thing I said in the post, if I remember correctly, was to imply that I was somehow a Jesuit agent of some some sort, as well as prove that you did not know what you were talking about, where Greek Manuscripts were concerned, which you were disparaging. (BTW, I have not given my own approval to any of these MSS, except to announce where they have a particular reading of something.)

(And, FTR, I have even been inside any Roman Catholic church a total of four times in my entire life, and in each instance that was for a funeral of someone fairly close to me, personally, or professionally.)

So, not that I really expect it to do any good, but I will attempt to answer your first question a bit further. [I have already explained that I do not hold to " God only preserved His Word in the originals" because you are here confusing and confuting "preservation" and "inspiration" with the latter (a la II Tim. 3:16 & II Pet. 1:16-21) properly referring to and reserved to a one-time process to the the human authors of Scripture. This explanation is also found in the above referenced post.]

To my knowledge, Scripture never mentions "textual criticism" in any version. However, the KJV translators acknowledge such, by mentioning multiple readings in some of the translators notes, and by the simple fact that no particular Greek or Hebrew text was taken in its entirety as the "original language" basis for translation. In addition, they were specifically told to consult other translations, from the TYN thru BIS and GEN. It is also a simple fact that in some places, readings from the LXX were taken, in preference to the Masoretic text, as the basis for certain NT quotes, or OT renditions, and in some places, readings from the VUL were effectively taken into editions of the TR, over the readings of the Greek MTs. (The translators acknowledge such in thier introductions, which you reallly should read some time. Might help your credibility! )

And I am not talking about the few times that Erasmus had to attempt to reconstruct a text, because of a missing part of the Greek MSS that he had access to, early on.

In addition, if there were no such thing as this "textual criticism", why would the later 'editors' of the TR and the Masoretic texts, emend their own editions to show this added input from other MSS in the Biblical languages? That would make less than no sense.

For example, initially Erasmus had access to fewer than 10 Greek MSS in 15215, for his first edition of the Novum Instrumentum omne or TR1516. Beza whose TR1598 is the most widely used text for the KJV, had and used more than double that number of Greek texts, with the corresponding emendations as he saw proper. By contrast, due to the finds of myriad additional MSS, Mr. Pierpont and Dr. Robinson et al., and Mr. Hodges and Dr. Farstad, et al., both had access to and used hundreds of MSS for their 'Majority' texts that are the later descendant of the Byzantine MSS tradition. (Incidentally, I happen to hold in my hot little paws, the MT, 2nd Edition, by Hodges/Farstad.)

That, my friend, is exactly what "textual criticism" is. It is not merely some pejorative comment on some so-called MVs, which use a different text form for either the OT or NT.

Thus to deny "textual criticism" is to deny the very textual basis of every English Bible since the TYN, including the KJV.

Oh, BTW, you're entirely welcome.

Ed

 

Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would have important implications that relate to the doctrine of preservation. These verses were important instructions and warnings given concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important part of preservation. These instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of accurate copies of the Scriptures. In addition, a logical deduction from these verses would affirm that copies would need to be examined or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made and that nothing was omitted. These verses would imply that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. When these verses are applied secondarily to translations, they would indicate that a translation could and should be corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages whenever that translation adds to, takes away, or diminishes by a poor, misleading, or inaccurate rendering. That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for evaluating translations of the Scriptures would seem to be a valid implication or deduction drawn from those verses.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]



So says modern day texual critics.


Every verse that is found in the Authorized Version that the modern translations have removed has strong support by the early witnesses and ancient manuscripts that they did exist.



I could care-less about what modern day critics say that favor the manuscripts that mutilate words and whole verses.Go back to the first few centuries and you will find that the early Church Fathers about 19 of them quotes the very verses that modern day bibles remove.

When these so-called men of higher education defend manuscripts that clearly mutilate Gods Word saying this or that is not in the oldest or best manuscripts and you know the early church fathers quoted them you have to let it be known.

Like:

Acts 8:37 says: "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

This very powerful verse is also omitted in MV`s. It was referred to by Cyprian who lived in the 3rd century A.D. and also Irenaeus who lived in the 2nd century. It can also be found in the early versions as well.

http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/van1999/greek_ed99.html

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm



"Jesus" is omitted 70 times in the Critical Text. "Christ" is omitted 29 times.

Also we do not know how many copies the two MSS are away from the autographs. I borrow from GW Anderson this idea:

Imagine it is 3000AD. A team of Bible experts locate an English Bible dating from the 1970's. It becomes the oldest Bible around by far.
The critics use it to translate into the new languages (say Eurogerman) all the evidence points to the fact we must accept this as the most accurate until we find it is the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Consider then the fact that it is possible that the two MSS, despite being the oldest, were merely biased and inaccurate mutilations of the true text.
The situation is the same as above. It is possible.

We must also consider the idea of preservation of the text by God Himself.

God Preserves his Word

The Christian has to ask fundamentally, How can we be sure? Is it possible that the scholars are right?

The problem is that, although the evidence does lead to the conclusion that the TR is the best and most accurate translation, it cannot be proven by textual basis alone.
The textual critics are wrong in their assumptions.
The Bible is a supernatural book, a book of a super-natural God.
He says in His Word "the scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 but most strongly in 1 Peter 1:23-25.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower therof falleth away, But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever..." (capitals added -Ed)

We can only be sure in God and His Word. He says (not me) it is incorruptible, it lives and abides for ever. The Church must then accept that we have His Word and always have had it. Since the first word of Genesis to the last day.

If we accept the Critical Text then we accept that the Church did not have the true Bible until the 19th century and men of God such as Polycarp, Calvin, Simons, even the Puritans such as Baxter and his ilk, were not only deceived in that respect but also in the whole truth because if God did not preserve His Word then He is a liar and the faith of Christianity is a total sham and waste of our time.

Are we seriously going to entertain that prospect?

Has the church been deceived by an evil and dishonest God? The Bible says not one jot or tittle shall be destroyed until ALL be fulfilled.

Critical Theory says the Bible has lost and gained bits all throughout the first few centuries.
The Bible says it is the word of God. Critical Theory says it is a human book like any other, uninspired but perhaps inspiring at best.

To Summarise

The TR is backed up by the evidence of history, versions, ancient writers as well as by internal consistency.

I recommend writing to the TBS for their brochures and letters on these topics.






God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

and the funny thing, of course, is that the rest of the verses removed by modern translations have little or no (as in the case of 1 John 5:7) support by the ancient Greek MSS.

not that it matters, really, for KJBOs only follow the Majority of the MSS when it suits them.

the rest of the time, they don't even need any MS evidence! :tonofbricks:

 

Steven, there are many things that cannot be proven from Scripture even though they are true and factual.

Believers often misinterpret Scripture (usually by ignoring the context) which can create a false belief, or misapply those verses in support of a preexisting belief. For example, I suppose II Timothy 2:15 ("righly dividing") could be convolutely used to affirm the validity of textual criticism. BTW, text criticsm is the so-called 'lower' criticsm and should not be confused with 'higher' criticism (authorship, etc.).

But to recognize the need for basic text criticism is not difficult. Since no extant ancient MSS have come to us undamaged and/or without copist errors, it is incumbent for us to use our God-given cognitive abilities to restore the distressed ancient texts. Clearly Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus compiled their printed Greek texts from multiple manuscripts. Certainly Jacob ben Chayim collated many Masoretic manuscripts in developing the printed Hebrew edition. Without textual criticism it would be unlikely that we could have anything close to a standardized English translation.

God did not promise with preservation of the Scriptures that there would be no role for humans to perform.

 

I hope that you agree that the originals were indeed His perfect words. After all, He is God and if He engages in an action then the result of that action is perfect (the way He intended). The perfect delivery process of His written revelation to humans we call "inspiration". We do not have the original manuscripts, therefore it seems that in a physical sense they have not be preserved.

I'm sure that by "His Word" you mean God's written revelation. However, the Scriptures used to support 'preservation' never explicitly state that God's words are all accurately preserved in writing on Earth for us. Read carefully.

 

It's a credit to not have credit with you I suppose, especially since you apply a general staement and take it so personal.

I suppose you think the body of Christ hasn't departed from living godly as a whole?

What do you "KNOW"? Can you provide the names that you "KNOW" I called anyone? Or is this an attempt to get some one banned?:sleep:

Jesus spoke of those who placed burdens on others and told us to yoke up with Him.:sleeping_2:

The KJV is proof enough for me that I have the word of God, why isn't it for you?

 

Explain? Will you accept the truth is more like it?

You won't admit that as we have more and more versions of the Bible that the whole creation is groaning in travail and getting farther away fro godliness? maybe a headline for America ought to get your attention but I seriously doubt your obsession will alow it:http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/new...cist_Group_Holds_First_US_Conference_59387110

It's really funny how you try to separate Gen 1:1 from the KJV:tonofbricks:

You're the only one bringing into question the word of God here, anyone else notice this?

Got anymore hissings?

 

Are you really assuming the KJV doesn't have on its cover, not unlike any other version, "The Holy Bible"?

I'm afraid freind you are consumed with this obsessive personality disorder.:sleep:

You're looking for it inside the version when all along it's right there on the cover!:laugh:

 

They can't even prove that from any version. they only, um, ONLY can make convolusions about the KJV and demand "KJVO" be within its pages.

That isn't proof! That is like saying the armadillo isn't now indigenous to Georgia because it's a mid-sw animal, but we run over them all the time here!

Opossum on the half-shell!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

Pastor Bob, sorry you wanted to talk about a book and then those on the KJVO side and the MVP side hijack it. I further am dismayed at the lying tactics of the KJVOs. Just sickens me that professing Christians (note, I said "professing") would employ such tactics.

At any rate, hope all is well with you.

 

I believe you have the authority thing all backwards here.

The word of God criticizes us, not we it. That is the highest form of textual criticism: God knows more than we .