Perfect Bible

Elizabethan English is not the universal language. The most dominant form of English is contemporary American English, which is dissimilar to King James English. My own mother, who speaks English, but whose native tongue is Dutch, gets a more accurate understanding from her Dutch Bible than a KJV Bible. A simple example is where the Greek says "to allow" but the KJV says "to suffer". Another example is where the Hebrew says "to prevent" but the KJV says "to let" ("let" used to mean "prevent", but today means "allow"). Another example is where the Hebrew says "bronze" but the KJV says "brass", which hadn't even been invented yet.

 

We've reached three pages and are back to the usual twaddle, perhaps even moreso. So the 24 hour notice is hereby given. Let's wrap it up.

 

Scott,

You said: “Erasmus, uninspired and probably unsaved, took less than 10 imperfect mss and recreated the perfect original?”.

This is patently false and is a myth that should not be propagated further. Consider the following excerpt:

The popular notion that Erasmus and other 16th-century editors of the Greek
New Testament worked with paltry resources is simply nonsense. The notes
that Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament prove that
he was informed of the variant readings that have found their way into the
modern translations since 1881. Even though Erasmus did not have access to
all of the manuscripts translators can use today, there can be no doubt
that he did have access to the variant readings in other ways.

“Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text
in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus
dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer
(Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt.
19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14),
the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken
in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16’)”
(Dr. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, 1979, pp.
198-199).

For a the full article go to: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/isthereceived.htm

 

Scott,

You said regarding Psalms 12: “You have been around long enough to have seen the proof against this verse being a promise for the preservation of words”.

You have no proof. You have your interpretation, but no proof. Is God promising to preserve godly men, the poor, or His Words? My interpretation is His Words, yours is not. Now you know you cannot prove your belief don’t you?

For an interesting article on this go to: http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm

 

If you look at the Hebrew from which the KJV came, it becomes clear that this verse is not talking about preserving "words".

Actually, the Hebrew word is not "words", but "commands".

I don't see how, even if the verse referrs to "commands/words", one would get the idea that it refers to a perfect "version in English", for two reasons:

1 - English was not around yet,
2 - Other English versions existed both right before and right after the KJV,
3 - the 1611 KJV has been since modified,
4 - the KJV contains translational errors
5 - the KJV English is no longer commonly spoken by English speakers,
6 - English is not the most widely used language, and
7 - the verse was written long before the NT was penned, long before the OT was completed, and long before the canon was closed.

 

First, consider the sources.

Second, I didn't say that Erasmus was not an extraordinary scholar with great breadth of knowledge. This was never part of my point. My point was that KJVOnlyism is premised on the notion that an unsaved RCC scholar with limited and imperfect resources at his immediate disposal recreated the perfect originals. This assumption is a necessary foundation for KJVO's and is obviously false.

BTW, if someone said that W/H or other modern textual scholars had worked from memory in developing their texts, what would you say?

 

Johnv,

You said: "If you look at the Hebrew from which the KJV came, it becomes clear that this verse is not talking about preserving words".

This is simply not true. Going to the Hebrew does not solve your problem. Whether it refers to godly men (v1), the poor (v5), or His Words (v6) is a matter of interpretation, and ultimately, faith.

Here is my exposition of Psalms 12 from a prior thread (9:21 am post): http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000748;p=2

 

Scott,

You seemed to address everything except my point. Most of your reply addresses a multitude of “other” issues. My point is, and I say this not trying to be obstinate, that your statement about “10 imperfect manuscripts” is misleading and false, that’s all. Are you going to stop propagating this false teaching to further your bias against KJBO beliefs?

With regard to the sources, a great many consider these sources very reputable. I, for one, have considered the sources and have found them to have great integrity. Do you have evidence to the contrary? When I say evidence, I don’t mean your disagreement with their interpretation of the facts, I mean something clear-cut, the word “proof” comes to mind.

I appreciate you honesty regarding the intellectual acumen of Erasmus. This is certainly a fact whether your KJBO or not. My contention would be that I could not judge this man’s salvation and that is an unwarranted personal attack on a man that God used mightily in His furtherance of the gospel. My personal opinion of his resources is different than yours. I do not think they were limited or imperfect. I believe the scholars today are the ones who are limited by their acceptance of questionable manuscripts and their usage of fallible human reasoning in determining favored texts. The leap of faith of perfect preservation is no more a leap than your imperfect preservation, both require a great deal of faith.

 

When it is proven wrong, I will quit writing it. Your having said so is not sufficient proof and I didn't see anything in your citations that leads to a different conclusion either.

Yes. Cloud recently resurrected a "controversy" concerning John MacArthur that accuses him falsely. The "blood" issue was first raised by someone at BJU with a later admission that the accusation had no basis.

Others here could probably cite many other problems with his info as some have interacted directly with him. My one interaction with him was a simple question: "If the KJV translators were godly men used to create the perfect English Bible then what religious persecution were the first English settlers in America running from? He wrote back to say that he didn't have time to answer my question.

I have seen Hills discussed but don't know his work by personal study. My comment was directed primarily at Cloud.

He lived in a time when people were taking sides. I have read some of his opinions on 'salvation' and believe them to be contrary to the biblical model.

Are you saying his mss/resources were uniformly in agreement with one another and complete? If one of them had been word for word perfect the way KJVO's demand that the KJV is then why wouldn't Erasmus simply have identified it rather than comparing it to any other?

That is your opinion. I personally don't buy all of the arguments either but right or wrong, modern scholars are considering alot more evidence than Erasmus had.

All human reasoning is fallible to include yours, mine, Erasmus', Beza's, and the KJV translator's. If God Himself chose the TR, MT, or KJV then please cite the direct evidence that proves it.

Not at all. As a scientific mind, you are well aware of legitimate methods for handling evidence.

Imagine that ten flask were set before you that were essentially the same thing but contained miniscule variant materials amounting to less than 5%. These deviations do not change the scope, purpose, or effectiveness of the chemical. How would you with 100% certainty reconstruct the perfect design specifications for the chemical mixture? Could you ever say with all certainty that you had recreated the "perfect", original mixture? No. But could you say that you had created a mixture close enough to the original that there is no difference in effectiveness? Yes.

There is not faith involved in recognizing that God preserved His Word in a multitude of varying mss. That is imperfect preservation of the words... not the Word.

 

Scott,

There is so much in your post I disagree with, but this one I think is the most telling. You said “There is not faith involved in recognizing that God preserved His Word in a multitude of varying mss. That is imperfect preservation of the words... not the Word”. Now do you really believe this? Do you actually think it is proven fact that God preserved his Word (I guess you mean general messages or something) in a multitude of varying manuscripts? Do you really think that it does not require faith to believe this? Scott, this is obviously your faith, and not fact. It is a fact that there exists a multitude of varying manuscripts, but your view of preservation is your faith, it is your interpretation of the facts, don’t you see this? You appealed to me scientifically with your illustration. The most fundamental basis for any scientific inquiry is to separate raw fact from interpretation. You have mixed the two and called it fact. No Scott, the fact is that there is a variety of varying manuscripts and translations, but this fact can be interpreted differently. Whether you realize it or not, you have chosen to place your faith in the modern theory of preservation, and I have chosen not to. Both of us stand on faith, not fact, on this issue.

 

The text which the KJV authors used still exists. Remember, the KJV is not even 400 years old.

 

Even an atheist could believe that the text of the Bible has been preserved through an abundance of ancient evidence to such a degree that much of the wording and all of the concepts presented in the originals have been preserved. I assign preservation to God's providence and promise as I assume you do. So the questions are: Has the text of the Bible been preserved? Yes. Was it preserved in a string of word for word duplications? No, it was preserved in a great number of slightly imperfect copies.

The only matter of faith/interpretation is whether you assign God as the cause of the preservation or assign it to human invention. I think the latter is wholly improbable... but that is my interpretation.

No. I am certain that it doesn't require faith to believe that the Bible has been preserved and that the means of preservation was not a single string of perfect facsimiles.

No. The facts are what they are. My faith tells me that God preserved His Word. The facts show us how He did it.

I agree. There is such overwhelming evidence that we can say with certainty that the Bible has been preserved. But that same evidence also shows varying but mutually affirming mss.

I hope this post will show you that I have not mixed the two. The historical facts are what they are. My faith is in the God who caused these facts to be what they are.

What can be interpretted differently?

No. I have chosen to believe the obvious and place my faith in God. I cannot honestly say what you have placed your faith in on this matter. This is not said to antagonize you but only because I have yet to see you establish a foundation for your KJVOnlyism that is consistent with your rationality and intelligence.

 

My faith tells me that God preserved His Word. The facts show us how He did it.

What facts are those? The KJV 1611 was replaced by a "more updated" KJV some years after it was published. There were numerous translations prior to the 1611 KJV, and there have been numerous tralslations since.

The KJV Bible is by no means the most widely circulated Bible. Actually, I believe that distinction falls to the Mandarin Bible (a Chinese translation). So how do not know that the Mandarin Bible is not God's preserved word?

 

John, I think you have me confused with a KJVO. The facts I was referring to are the facts pointing to God's preservation by a variety of mss and versions as opposed to one version.

 

Forgive me, I misread your post. See what happens when one's caffiene intake is below the minimum octane level???

I think we're singing out of the same hymnal, so to speak.

 

(duplicate post deleted)

 

Yeah it feels good to be back in good graces after our Civil War discussions... I promise I won't try to get Missouri quit the union so maybe we can avoid any future problems.

 

Scott,

Let me restate my question. You broke out my statement into so many parts, but it was intended as one question. I’m not saying this to be sarcastic, but I believe you missed my point.

You said: “There is not faith involved in recognizing that God preserved His Word in a multitude of varying mss. That is imperfect preservation of the words... not the Word”.

Most of the variation in your “varying manuscripts” is based on what are generally called Alexandrian manuscripts. When you made the aforementioned statement I assumed you included Alexandrian manuscripts in your “multitude of varying manuscripts”. Now, do you believe that the variation introduced by these manuscripts, which accounts for most of the variation, is part of God’s preservation of His Words? If you do, I say you take that by faith.