Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

Really? Who? What is a Pure Cambridge?

 

What a coincidence that those who support the MVs are so quick to display such un-Christian behavior as calling people liars. I have had several of you call me a liar now.

I did not lie, and I will show that. I am no scholar on these matters, nor do I aspire to be. But I have always understood that the notes the translators used which would show the exact texts they used were destroyed in a fire, so we do not know exactly what texts they used, though it is certain they used many of the sources you quoted. However, there are also deviations from all known texts.

So, as you see, I did not lie and I am not ignorant. Perhaps it is you that is misinformed.

 

I have seen you several times say you believe the words will be preserved. What does that mean?

And when you say because a copy or translation is incorrect, that doesn't mean God's word is corrupt. That is true, but how in the world is a person to know where God's Word ends, and man's word starts?

So, if I understand you and some of the other MVs, you believe God's word is preserved, but it is all mixed up with man's word. That would be a very dangerous bible indeed.

And I don't consider that preserved. If I preserve some apple jam and open the jar and it is all full of mold and contamination, I hardly consider that preserved, but perhaps you do.

I don't believe as you. I believe God actually preserved his pure word like he promised to do. I cannot explain how he did it and how it came about, but I believe he did it nonetheless. I don't believe like you that God's word is all mixed up with man's word, at least not in the KJB.

And in one post you said you didn't care about word order if I recall correctly. You can't possibly mean this.

Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

What would this verse say if you simply swapped the word order of destroy and save? It would say:

For the Son of main is not come to save men's lives, but to destroy them. And they went to another village.

So, this is incredibly false, word order is extremely important.

And here is the source of that quote, although I have seen much more detailed information on this and am trying to find it.

http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/kingjamesbible.html

 

If I am correct, Greek, like Latin, does not require words to be in a specific order as English does. (if I am misinformed, by all means correct me)

 

Really? Who? What is a Pure Cambridge?

Maybe you missed this WM? (or maybe I am on his ignore list )

 

You should run for politics, you aren't saying anything here. How did they do it before the KJB? Please explain.

Another non-answer that says nothing at all. You make all sorts of vague statements that nobody could possibly understand. Why don't you explain so people can know what you are really saying?

Of course it was preserved, how could they translate something that didn't exist? However, it was not preserved in one volume, the translators looked at as many texts possible to put it together. I am not the one to explain it to you, but there are many good books on the texts that the KJB had available, and how they decided which was scripture and which was not and how they weeded out error.

It is obvious that no matter what anyone (especially me) tells you, you have already made your mind up. This is really a big waste of time.

You don't get it, and this time it is correct to say you don't understand it. God promised to preserve his word. Now, you either believe that or you don't. I believe God did preserve his word. I can't explain how he did it, yet I believe he did it.

You on the other hand will not accept anything on faith. You want some scholarly answer for everything. You trust in man's wisdom. Well, you are never going to find an answer, because many scholarly men will write books supporting the KJB, and an equal number will write scholarly books against it. I can tell you right now you will never find an answer to this question by studying books written by man. If you want to spin your wheels and waste your time, that is up to you. But I get the impression that the real problem is that you simply do not believe God preserved his pure word as he promised to do. His promise is not good enough for you, you do not want to live by faith, you want scholarly proof. Good luck on that.

 

Oh, this gets better by the minute! Now you're quoting Sanderson...a banned BB member, who outright says, "I worship the King James Bible."

Nice job. You're quoting heretics. You might want to pick sources with at least a thread of credibility.

 

I quoted him because that is all I could find at present on those notes being destroyed by fire. I do not know anything about Sanderson, but he did not make this up, it is historical record. I have even seen others here speak of it before.

I will keep searching, and when I find a different source I will post it. Of course, that does not guarantee you will accept it, I get the strong impression that you will not.

 

Actually I haven't. Maybe earlier than the regular view 7th Century. But Remember in the 4th Century we only have partial agreement and liturgical use was in practice. You can see a development when the empire moved back east and Byzantine use became practiced. Your position of prior to 4th Century is still speculation and unsubstantiated.

 

I am glad you do not support the modern versions. But you have a real problem calling people liars don't you?

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Jesus said that a man speaks that which is in his heart. Maybe you should think about that before you go around calling people liars.

By the way, thank you for the information, however, that is a copy of only one of the translators notes.

And as far as copying and pasting, we all rely on other sources at times, including yourself.

 

OK, I think I have found some information on the fire that destroyed the original texts.

Now, this fellow is absolutely anti-KJB, but what he says does not bother me in the least. I have said and will always say that this issue cannot be settled through scholarship. Eventually you will have to come to the realization that a person must believe God preserved the scriptures by faith. There is no way to prove it though scholarship.

And now, those who have called me a liar can see that I am not.

 

"Faith" based in ignorance is not faith. I won't call you a liar, but you have been deceived by false teachers.

I daresay that you ALSO trust in "man's wisdom". No one that is an honest man can say that he found the doctrine of KJVO in his Bible. It's not there. You can twist the Scriptures to make it appear so, but it's not there.

I have a great deal of respect for men like Dr. Cassidy and Dr. Bob, who have more knowledge than I do on this subject and whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose. May I suggest that we all take a lesson from their example- first of all even if they are not 100% in agreement on Bible versions, they still manage to get along and be civil- and second, they STUDY the issue for themselves rather than pasting quotes from ignoramuses who quote ignoramuses, who quote... well, I hope you get the idea.

 

You don't understand: He's not "anti-KJB". No one here on the BB is "anti-KJB"- at least no one I know is. (I used the KJV in my sermon today and no one batted an eyelash. I also used the ESV and the NIRV. God's not limited to using just ONE version.)

Many of us ARE "anti-KJVO"- a false doctrine that divides churches, destroys missions, and damns people to hell based on their choice of bible version.

 

Well, you could sure fool me. So what if people like myself believe that the KJB is the preserved word of God? I have been called an idolator and a heretic. I haven't said anything like that about those who choose to believe in many various versions, although I will say I disagree with you.

If folks just said they disagreed with myself and others, that would be one thing. But when people spew poisonous hatred it absolutely comes across as hatred toward the KJB.

 

I would say that you're easy to fool, but I won't. :smilewinkgrin:

Poisonous hatred towards the doctrine of KJVO ≠ hatred to the KJV. Say it to yourself a few times and it should start to take hold.

YOU are the one demanding the extra-Biblical requirement: