No manuscripts, no Bible?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TomVols, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOs love to point out that the original mss do not exist to our knowledge, thus we do not have an accurate word of God (unless it's KJV, but whose same originals are also lost). Thus God did not preserve His word, they say. So we do not have a Bible today. "Where is the preserved Word of God," they cry out.

    Yet atheists use this same tack as their polemic against the Bible. "No mss, no Bible" they argue.

    So then, how can KJVO be anything but the worst kind of sophistry?

    When someone uses such a blatantly flawed, yet horrible argument to malign God's Word, how can such a view be considered in any way Biblical? The burden of proof shifts squarely on the KJVOs to show they accept Biblical teaching when their words clearly argue otherwise.

    I offer for your discussion, having been a former KJVO, and never having known a KJVO who actually believes in inspiration, inerrancy, perservation, and infallibility of the Bible. Maybe they're out there, but I've never met one in real life nor in these fora.
     
  2. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm glad that I am satisfied with what I read, teach, and preach from. To me it's God's word and I don't care what anybody else has to say or think about it. I don't care about the arguments against it, the attacks against it, and the animosity directed towards it. Although I stand for it and believe in it, it's truth and strength does not require that I do so. I choose the Book I believe to be God's word and am satisfied with my decision. IOW, I can live with it. If you can do the same with your choice, so be it. Just stop bashing people that love and cherish the KJV and respect it as God's word. They are not as radical and narrow minded as they are portrayed to be. :godisgood:
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate your response. (Sounds like a KJVP to me) :smilewinkgrin:

    However, I must take issue with one part. I've yet to see one person on here bash the KJV. I know I never have. To call KJVO what it is does not bash the KJV any more than, say, criticising communism means you hate Cuban people.

    There may be some KJVOs who love the KJV, but those who love the KJV are not necessarily KJVO. So I don't see the KJV bashed.

    Thanks again!
     
  4. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    You misquoted me. I said, "stop bashing people that love and cherish the KJV..."

    You're right. I can't recall anyone bashing the book, only the people that choose to read, study, and use it only.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I don't believe the AV is real. Can't prove it.

    There are no original manuscripts of the Anglican "translators". They all mysteriously were destroyed in a fire.

    There are no Greek Texts that they used (for the uninformed, they proudly did NOT use the MT or the TR; they had their own unique concoction electic blend of MSS). All one can do is look at the translation and try to "translate back" and guess what they used.

    All we have are copies of copies, with only the Lord-knows-what sort of alterations and changes.

    Read one edition that said "Thou shalt commit adultery". Must be one still used by former pastors I know . . .

    Nope. Without the "originals", it is just not true. Sorry.
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cutter wrote:
    Your first part is correct and I apologize for misquoting you.
    However, I would still disagree that I've seen (and I've not done this) anyone bash those who choose to use only the KJV. There may be some KJVOs who love the KJV, but those who love the KJV are not necessarily KJVO.

    Now, if you say

    Those who choose the KJV to be used only (KJVP) come under numerous attacks from the KJVO folks on here. That may be what you're thinking of. I'll even take it further. No one who is KJVO should be bashed. But KJVO should be bashed since we're called to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).

    Thanks!
     
  7. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    From another thread.

     
  8. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about this one from Dr. Bob a moderator.

    That's not a bash, we're all just heretics. [​IMG]

    He also said we were sickening.
     
  9. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is a total misrepresentation of what KJVOs say. We do say the original autographs no longer exist. But we firmly believe the KJV to be the preserved, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

    Arguing that a translation must contain error is non-sensical, otherwise your precious Greek texts would be full of error. Jesus and most of his disciples did not speak Greek, so you are reading a translation when you read their words in Greek.

    The scriptures even show absolute examples of translation.

    Matt 27:33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,

    Golgatha is not a Greek word, it is Aramaic, being translated to mean "a place of a skull".

    Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    Here Jesus spoke in Aramaic and it is translated in Greek.

    There are many other instances of translation like this in the scriptures. When Moses spoke to Pharaoh, he spoke Egyptian, but Moses translated it to Hebrew when he wrote the scriptures. The words of Nebuchadnezzar are a translation. Many scholars believe the book of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated to Greek. A version in Hebrew is known.

    So, this argument that a translation must contain error is absurd.
     
  10. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good thing you aren't in Wyoming. :laugh:
     
  11. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good thing for who?

    Go back over any of these threads where there is a debate between those who prefer the KJV with those who do not and see who is doing all the childish and malicious attacking. I don't need to attack, truth and common sense are on my side.
     
  12. God's_Servant

    God's_Servant
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Original Greek manuscripts is inspired by God, that is why it is without error. A translation of God's inspired words will always contain error.
     
  13. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    You cannot say that, because it is not entirely certain that all of the NT books were originally written in Greek. And even those that were are a translation themselves, as Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek.

    You cannot claim the original NT texts were all written in Greek, they disappeared centuries ago, even before the KJV translators. No one alive on this earth knows exactly what the original autographs contained or what language they were written in.

    A translation does not have to contain error, that is a ridiculous point of view. When Moses recorded the conversations between himself and Pharaoh, that was a translation, the Pharaoh did not speak Hebrew, but Moses knew Egyptian.

    Joseph's words were translated.

    Gen 47:1 Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.

    You believe Joseph made Pharaoh speak Hebrew here? Absurd.

    We have all the words Joseph spoke to his brothers recorded in Hebrew in the scriptures, but Joseph did not speak in Hebrew to his brothers to mask his identity.

    Gen 42:23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

    The words of Nebuchadnezzar were a translation.

    Dan 3:14 Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
    15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?


    Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are not Hebrew names, they are Chaldean names.

    Dan 1:6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
    7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.


    You are doing the very thing you accuse KJVOs of, you are ONLYISTS. You are saying the inerrant scriptures can only be in the original languages and any translation must be an error. But the scriptures themselves are a translation in many places.
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cutter, your example citing Trotter does not attack those who prefer the KJV, but those who are KJVO and denigrate those who do not who happen to have knowledge and study.

    Win, I don't know where to begin. You've constantly repeated the "there's no Bible" refrain. And your citation of Dr. Bob is a blatent misrepresentation. He is referring to KJVO, not the KJV or KJVP.
    non-sequitur.

    Do the original autographa of the KJV exist?
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's clear that the KJVO, bereaft of truth and having long ago jettisoned a Biblical view of Scripture, resort to all sorts of attacks and reliance on human sophistry, attacking those of us who believe in the inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and preservation of God's Word. I can name many KJVO who have had to be disciplined or banned because of their actions. I can't think of any right off who are not who suffered the same fate.

    You'd cringe at the KJVO I know. Well, I would hope you would. When you deny God's Word, you live a wicked life. You cannot deny the Word of God and the God of the Word with your mouth and it not follow with your life.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,139
    Likes Received:
    320
    True but those words are the codified words of inspiration in the Hebrew and Greek as the Holy Spirit Himself was the ultimate translator.

    Not so the King James translators of those books in the original languages.

    If you want to believe that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit flowed through the KJV translators guiding them in their translation so be it, that is your choice.

    However what of the Latin vulgate which ruled over the church for almost 1000 years beginning long before the reformation and the commission of King James to translate the Scriptures into 17th century English?

    Was the Latin Vulgate inspired? What of the Septuigint (LXX) or the Peshitto or the old itala?

    And for that matter what about cultist version of the Bible.

    According to Baptist theology, the Church of England is an heretical church because of their practices of pedobaptism, transubstantiation, sacerdotal priesthood, apostolic succession back to Christ and many other Romish errors.

    In 1611 they were still celebrating the sacrifice of the mass (and some "high-church" membership do to this very day).

    Does that sound like a church the Holy Spirit would choose to grant the apostolic "gift of inspiration" upon?

    Where is the chapter and verse in the 1611or 1769 AV which tells us which Bible translation is inspired including the 1611AV.

    Is it the Cambridge 1611 AV or the Oxford 1769 AV (which is probably the one you are currently using)?

    To say it is both is to say that God does and can make mistakes (howbeit little ones) because they are different in hundreds of cases.

    When He makes a translation does God make mistakes in gender, number and spelling of words which have to be filtered out and/or corrected by mortal men over a period of 150 plus years?

    And yes, now that you mention it, in one sense, I am an ONLYIST because only the words of the original mss and their faithful copies are inspired.

    Personally, I take offense at you saying that those of us who point out the truth concerning the history of the Authorised Version "hate" the KJV.

    I for one do not, I love it. It has had a profound and providential effect upon the entire world as well as the English speaking sector.

    And I don't appreciate KJVO folks mocking your brethren with cute little riddle-jokes just because we know it is a translation and defend the truely inspired words of the originals.

    I also do not appreciate those who mock our KJVO brethren.

    Can't we bury this hatchet?


    HankD
     
  17. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said.

    On one hand, I wish this. On the other hand, we have to contend once for all for the faith delivered unto the saints. The KJVO side which denies this must be gently, lovingly shown their error in the hopes that truth will reign in their hearts.
     
  18. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Winman wrote:
    and then:
    So you now believe in the inerrancy of something that doesn't exist? How do you know? :tongue3: Interesting that this is your own logic used against Bible believers often.
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12

    Actually, I gave an instance from my church, not a directive at you or your false beliefs.

    Calling someone a "heretic" on the BB is not permitted. Calling their beliefs "sickening" is simply accurate.

    (Hey, I'm not only a fighter for the purity of the doctrine of inspiration and attacks by the "only" sect against it, I am also fighting for the doctrine of soteriology against the "arminian/pelagians" here. Equal opportunity fighter)
     
  20. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0

    What is interesting is that you can't come up with your own argument and have to attempt to turn mine against me. Reminds me of that Pee Wee Herman movie where he and the other guy kept shouting, "I know you are but what am I?" back and forth at each other.

    Hey, you are the guys that insist the original autographs are inerrant when you've never seen them, I was simply agreeing with you. Nothing like a good old non-falsifiable argument. :laugh:
     
    #20 Winman, Apr 15, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 15, 2010

Share This Page

Loading...