Restored Texts and Question God's Words

Askjo · May 21, 2006

StandingfirminChrist quoted:

Satan is the accuser of the brethren and satan is also the one who questioned God's Word all along. 'Yea, and hath God said?'
Click to expand...

Very interesting suspicion on this quotation is very serious for today. Is that true to say that the Satan questioned God's Words while he tempted Eve?

Dr. Thomas Strouse wrote:

CHRISTIANS SHOULD THANK TEXTUAL CRITICS FOR RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE THAT GOD CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE.

Waltke confidently states "to restore the original text of ancient documents, such as the OT Scriptures, is the task of textual criticism." [xli] Another Bible critic affirms the following role for seminaries such as his:

Our purpose at Central is "to reconstruct from all the witnesses available to us the text essentially preserved in all, but perfectly preserved in none" [footnote 3, Rene Pache, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), 197]. It is evident from the historical evidence that God has providentially preserved His Word for the present generation. However, we do not believe that God has preserved His Word perfectly and miraculously in any one manuscript or group of manuscripts, or in all the manuscripts. Therefore, in our study of the text we work with all the manuscripts to compile a text closer to the original than any one manuscript or group of manuscripts. [xlii]

Again, Mark Norton states, "Christians are thus in debt to the textual critics who have worked, and are working, to provide a dependable biblical text." [xliii] These writers obviously think that the role of Textual Criticism is to restore or reconstruct a Bible text that God apparently chose not to preserve. This view begs the question as to how the critic will know that the text is restored or reconstructed since the Lord apparently left no exemplar for comparison! The anti-supernatural German rationalistic movement (17th-19th centuries) known as Biblical Criticism spawned several literary-critical fields, one of which was Textual Criticism. The picking and choosing of Bible texts is not Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism is a sophisticated system based on elaborate and evolutionary schemes following human logic to determine the possible origin of variants. [xliv] The so-called science of Textual Criticism is only needed when one believes that God has not accomplished His promise to preserve the inspired original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the autographa. [xlv]

The Lord Jesus Christ has promised the full preservation of the divinely inspired Words of the OT and NT Scriptures (Ps. 12:6-7; Mt. 4:4, 5:18, 24:35). He has given the responsibility of preserving His Words to His only ecclesiological institution-the local, immersionist assembly (Mt. 28:19-20; I Tim. 3:15). God has given His chosen people (Jews) and His chosen institution (the local immersionist assembly) the responsibility and empowerment to preserve His OT and NT Words, respectively. The Bible nowhere gives credence to the role of the professional "textual critic," especially outside of the immersionist assembly, to restore what He has determined not to preserve. In spite of Biblical evidence, some want to praise textual critics for their role in giving Christians the approximate Words of God. Mark Minnick states:

For many centuries now God has ensured that there have been qualified textual critics to analyze available manuscripts. In other words, textual criticism is not a new discipline-it is an old one-employed by anyone who has ever compared two or more manuscripts in an effort to reproduce an accurate copy of God's Word. If our present translations do indeed reproduce the original readings, it is because textual critics did their work well. [xlvi]

This claim is repudiated by the inspired history of NT immersionist churches recorded in the NT. For instance, the church at Ephesus not only received but also copied perfectly the Book of the Apocalypse from John. The church at Smyrna made a copy and passed it on to the church at Pergamos, and so on, until there were six perfect copies and one original, and all this accomplished by faithful church members (cf. Rev. 22:7,18-19). This inspired scenario was repeated thousands of times through history so that now we have immersionist churches which receive the preserved inspired OT and NT texts and accurate translations of God's Words through the instrumentality of fallible yet faithful church members. Since the text of Scripture was never lost, the Lord never used textual critics to restore His text. Faithful church members have never had to use the premise or tools (i.e., rules, canons, axioms, etc.) of Textual Criticism since neither are Biblically valid. [xlvii] The Lord has always used, whether history can corroborate this or not, faithful church members as He promised (Mt. 28:19-20), not to restore, but to preserve His Received Words (Jn. 17:8).

CONCLUSION

As Paul warned Timothy (1 Tim. 1:4) even so Bible-related myths are a concern today for all Bible believers. Christians have the responsibility and the means whereby to dispel these myths. Those Bible critics and their followers who have rejected the Masoretic Hebrew text behind the King James Version have postulated several myths and fallacious corollaries, and at the same time given no assurance of final Words or absolute authority. The Bible refutes these myths. The Bible teaches that the original language of the Garden of Eden was Hebrew. Therefore, Hebrew did not evolve from the Canaanite language. Christ used the Hebrew text and His NT Words to evangelize Jews and Greeks. The early Christians used the Hebrew and the Apostles' tradition to evangelize Jews and Gentiles. Since the vowel points were part of the original Words God preserved, the Masoretes did not need to invent a pointing system. Since the Masoretes passed on the preserved Words, the name Jehovah for the tetragrammaton stands. Bible critics have only questioned the Words and the authority of Scripture, and even the authorship of the Psalms, and have given no valuable contribution. When the preserved Hebrew text represented by the Masoretic text is received by faith, then the scholarly myths are dispelled. Is it not time for Bible-believing, fundamental Baptist church members to stop giving "heed to fables" and honor Jehovah God, the Lord Jesus Christ, with faith in His inspired and preserved Words of promise? Click here:Questioned and Restored
Click to expand...

These critics questioned God's Words because they restored the texts that God chose NOT to preserve. In our day we as KJV defenders, realized many tectual critics questioned God's Words such as Dr. Bruce Metzger, W/H and others, for example. The KJV is the FINAL AUTHORITY. Why did W/H hate the TR is because W/H were closet catholics. Roman Catholics monks killed William Tyndale and burned his Bibles because he took care of his Tyndale Bibles prior to the KJV. Remember Tyndale's prayer saying to Lord God, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." That is how we got the Bible, namely the KJV.

When the KJV's arrival, many preachers preached saying, "Thus saith the Lord, Amen!"

[Assumptions and attacks against people claiming they hated the KJV removed] Why? Replace the KJV! But they FAILED. According to David Cloud he said that Roman Catholic rejects the KJV.

Who were W/H? They were anglicans and closet catholics. One of them HATED the democracy; other was a socialist. They were textual critics because they produced their ERV. [Claimed people's unbelief based on their use of textual criticism and also claiming they were closet catholics]

In our current day many textual critics produced multiple modern versions because they directly followed W/H's idea. Most of them oftenly said that the KJV has errors. "Today" textual critics questioned God's Words as an example of Dr. Metzger questioned the authorship of the Holy Scriptures as what David Cloud reported. Not only Metzger, but many names that David Cloud provided in his websites and booklets.

Most KJV defenders do not NEED textual criticism because they by faith believe God's Words such as the KJV for English-speaking people.

Most MVOists demand manuscript evidence showing that the KJV has errors because they restored these manuscripts and produced new bibles AGAINST the KJV.

One of the KJV defenders named Will K. He provided his answers against modern versions because he showed you many contradictions and errors in modern versions. [Attack against Modern Versions deleted]

NONE of KJV defenders questioned God's Words, but Modern Versions defenders questioned God's Words because of manuscript evidences that they showed these KJV defenders against the KJV and for modern versions. I read many posts saying modern versions are MORE accurate THAN the KJV.

Edward F. Hills explained concerning two methods: Consistently Christian method and Naturalistic method because he saw two sides: the KJV and Modern Versions. He found that the KJV is the best one. To understand the naturalistic method is that textual critics had no logic of faith.

StandingfirminChrist is right because I agree with what he said. [removed attack claiming Satan attacked the Word of God through the use of MVs] See here! Look at the word, "future" here because many INCOMING NEW modern versions will come in the future. New modern version in 2010.... New modern version in 2015.... New modern version..... WHO NEED THEM? Not KJV defenders, but MV defenders do.

Christians THANKED those critics because they restored the texts that God chose NOT to preserve.

I only use the KJV. I said, "Thus saith the Lord." I pointed at the KJV and said, "This is the Word of God!" Amen!

[ May 22, 2006, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

DesiderioDomini · May 21, 2006

We are all now dumber for having been duped into reading this.

Diggin in da Word · May 21, 2006

Speak for yourself, I happened to learn quite alot.

DesiderioDomini · May 21, 2006

Very well, I learned quite a bit of false information here.

As did you.

Linda64 · May 21, 2006

Did the truthfulness of the post reveal the false information you've been holding on to?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you can't be right all the time, DD

Keith M · May 21, 2006

Askjo, twice in your post you mentioned "the texts God chose NOT to preserve." Are we to assume now that you know the mind of God, and that He has communicated to you which texts He chose to preserve and which texts He chose not to preserve? And why is it that God's word was not preserved until the textus receptus showed up? Is not the TR a compilation of various manuscripts, none of which were complete? Wasn't the TR put together from bits and pieces, somewhat like a jigsaw puzzle?

There is a serious problem with this stance, Askjo. If you believe that God did not want these texts to survive, then please tell us why you believe God did not destroy these texts completely, but allowed them to remain for textual critics? Do you believe God didn't have the power to destroy these supposedly faulty texts if that was truly His will? Or is it that you believe God was undecided, so that He allowed these texts to survive in bits and pieces for people to find years later?

Think about your fanciful claims, Askjo. Do you really want to question God's actions? Do you really want to question God's powers? Do you really want to questions God's choices? If you honestly answer these questions you will have to conclude that your claims are wrong, that these claims were made hastily and without serious thought about what you were saying. Please do not question God's actions, His powers and His choices, Askjo. He isn't happy with us when we do those things.

Keith M · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by Linda64:
Did the truthfulness of the post reveal the false information you've been holding on to?
Click to expand...

Actually, the untruthfulness of the post reveals the false information KJVOs have been holding on to.

If anyone chooses to use exclusively the KJV, then that is their own decision to make. But there is absolutely no truth to the false claims of the KJVO myth.

Keith M · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by Askjo:
StandingfirminChrist is right because I agree with what he said.
Click to expand...

My, my, my, such authority! Do I detect a bit of arrogance there, Askjo? Just because you agree with someone doesn't make them right. In fact, when you support the KJVO myth, Askjo, you are also wrong!

If anyone chooses to use only the KJV, that decision is up to them. But anyone who supports the KJVO myth is not right. They're absolutely wrong, even if you do agree with them!

Diggin in da Word · May 21, 2006

Think about your fanciful claims, Askjo. Do you really want to question God's actions? Do you really want to question God's powers? Do you really want to questions God's choices? If you honestly answer these questions you will have to conclude that your claims are wrong, that these claims were made hastily and without serious thought about what you were saying. Please do not question God's actions, His powers and His choices, Askjo. He isn't happy with us when we do those things.
Click to expand...

It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Word, AskJo is defending God's Word.

Does it ever occur to anyone that God may have preserved that word not on paper, but in the heart of man? In Psalms 119:11 David said, Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

We have today, men who are able to quote many passages of scripture from memorization. Why, Jack Van Impe has memorized over 87% of the Bible himself.

I hold that God's Word was preserved. In the hearts of men.

Does not God move on men to memorize the Word?

Is not God powerful enough to write His Word in the heart of the man who has given diligence to know that Word?

Does not God have a choice in how His Word is preserved? Does it have to be on paper?

It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Holy Word, she is defending it.

His Blood Spoke My Name · May 21, 2006

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Think about your fanciful claims, Askjo. Do you really want to question God's actions? Do you really want to question God's powers? Do you really want to questions God's choices? If you honestly answer these questions you will have to conclude that your claims are wrong, that these claims were made hastily and without serious thought about what you were saying. Please do not question God's actions, His powers and His choices, Askjo. He isn't happy with us when we do those things.
Click to expand...

It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Word, AskJo is defending God's Word.

Does it ever occur to anyone that God may have preserved that word not on paper, but in the heart of man? In Psalms 119:11 David said, Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

We have today, men who are able to quote many passages of scripture from memorization. Why, Jack Van Impe has memorized over 87% of the Bible himself.

I hold that God's Word was preserved. In the hearts of men.

Does not God move on men to memorize the Word?

Is not God powerful enough to write His Word in the heart of the man who has given diligence to know that Word?

Does not God have a choice in how His Word is preserved? Does it have to be on paper?

It is not AskJo who is questioning God's Holy Word, she is defending it. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! Well said.
I am not KJVO. As many have seen, I have been posting from the NASB in my posts. But, the attacks on those that are convicted that God has preserved His Word for the English speaking people in the KJV, are not of God.

I believe God very well could have preserved His Word in the hearts of man. I am open to that.

Reading the many hateful remarks toward one who claims to be of Christ is contrary to God's will for His people. Did not the Psalmist write,

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For (a)brothers to dwell together in unity!
NASB

(The (a) and (b) are references to scripture. Genesis 13:8 and Hebrews 13:1)

TCassidy · May 21, 2006

It is good to see that Askjo finally believes that if God did not preserve the words then they are not the right words. Rev 17:8 shows that the words as found in the KJV are not the words God preserved. They were added by men. I am glad to see that Askjo now admits that the words as found in the KJV at verse 8 are words that God did not preserve so they are not the words of God.

Ransom · May 21, 2006

DD said:

We are all now dumber for having been duped into reading this.

You read it? I've never been happier that I bought a mouse with a scroll wheel.

Diggin in da Word · May 21, 2006

TCassidy, I hold to the fact that God has preserved His Word. That God did indeed preserve His Word in man's heart; That the phrase 'and yet is' is indeed in the KJV because God had preserved that Word in man's heart to be written in His Holy Word.

DesiderioDomini · May 21, 2006

BY WHOM, Diggin?

Did John write it, or did some LATER MAN add to John's Revelation?

Ed Edwards · May 21, 2006

Quoted above: // CHRISTIANS SHOULD THANK TEXTUAL CRITICS FOR RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE THAT GOD CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE.//

The KJV1611 Edition, in it's translator footnotes PROVES
that the translators of the KJV used TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
The above statement is true of the KJV
(or else there is a wide DOUBLE STANDARD going on here).

Askjo · May 22, 2006

Originally posted by Keith M:
And why is it that God's word was not preserved until the textus receptus showed up? Is not the TR a compilation of various manuscripts, none of which were complete?
Click to expand...

Well, Polycarp used the TR because he received it from John the Apostle. When Polycarp was a martyr, his TR was destroyed. Likewise William Tyndale and his Bible. The TR went back to the 1st Century. That is how we get the Bible. If the TR was not there, we would NOT get the true Bible.

Dr. Waite wrote:

The history of the TR began with Paul, peter, John, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Jude, the writers of the Greek New Testament. The history of the TR (the Received Text, the Traditional Text) began with the early apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches. Fundamentalist Mis-Information On Bible Version, page 78
Click to expand...

The fact about the TR is that the TR was there in apostolic times.

Do you really want to question God's actions? Do you really want to question God's powers? Do you really want to questions God's choices? If you honestly answer these questions you will have to conclude that your claims are wrong, that these claims were made hastily and without serious thought about what you were saying. Please do not question God's actions, His powers and His choices, Askjo. He isn't happy with us when we do those things.
Click to expand...

I thank Diggin in da Word for his response to you. I agree with him.

Askjo · May 22, 2006

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
TCassidy, I hold to the fact that God has preserved His Word. That God did indeed preserve His Word in man's heart; That the phrase 'and yet is' is indeed in the KJV because God had preserved that Word in man's heart to be written in His Holy Word.
Click to expand...

Amen to that!

Askjo · May 22, 2006

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Quoted above: // CHRISTIANS SHOULD THANK TEXTUAL CRITICS FOR RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE THAT GOD CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE.//

The KJV1611 Edition, in it's translator footnotes PROVES
that the translators of the KJV used TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
The above statement is true of the KJV
(or else there is a wide DOUBLE STANDARD going on here).
Click to expand...

The KJV translators risked their life. These modern version translators did NOT risk their life!!!! See the difference between them.

Ed Edwards · May 22, 2006

Askjo: //The KJV translators risked their life.//

Your statement is NOT true.
No KJV translator rised his life; the translators
were paid by the head of the Church of England:
King James.

BTW, the opening post contains a decption:

TR should be 'TRs' in many uses.
The T'extus Receptus' should be translated
received texts''

Phillip · May 22, 2006

Why in the world do you think the KJV translators risked their lives when the King sanctioned the KJV.

I also notice in a post above that you call W/H closet catholics.

What in the world do you think the church of England was? The only reason it didn't answer to home Pope was Henry the eighth wanted to whack his wive's heads off. The Church of England (now the Episcopals) are about as close to Catholic as you can get.

In fact, it was the protestants of Holland who rejected the KJV for the Geneva translation. The Geneva was what was brought over on the MayFlower for freedom of worship from the tyranny of the English Church.

Have you not studied your history?

Restored Texts and Question God's Words

Askjo New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Linda64 New Member

Keith M New Member

Keith M New Member

Keith M New Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

His Blood Spoke My Name New Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

Ransom Active Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Askjo New Member

Askjo New Member

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

Useful Searches

Restored Texts and Question God's Words

Askjo New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Linda64 New Member

Keith M New Member

Keith M New Member

Keith M New Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

His Blood Spoke My Name New Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

Ransom Active Member

Diggin in da Word New Member

DesiderioDomini New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Askjo New Member

Askjo New Member

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator