The Original Manuscripts

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Johathan01, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is all the fuss about the original manuscripts? Many on here say only the originals were inspired and that God chose for them to be lost. Is God a deist? Did he leave humanity to pick up the pieces of His word and try to find these inspired nuggets in all these different modern versions? Is there NO ABSOLUTE AND FINAL AUTHORITY that anyone can read, preach, teach or handle? Is the whole thing really only a matter of preference? Is this how we treat the Holy Words of God?

    What some fail to understand is that the originals are irrelevant. They are gone.This is God's doing.The languages of the originals are no longer important for God's work. No one ever got saved from an "original" during the Great Awakening, and no one ever got saved in your neighborhood that way either.

    We don't see God working with "manuscripts" or "originals." We DO see God preserving copies of words. .2 Tim 3:15,16 says: "And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

    Did Timothy have the "originals"? Was what he had inspired, Yes or No?

    Those who believe we have no 100% inspired bible anywhere on earth, are actually saying that God was UNABLE to preserve His Word through Bible-believing Christians at Antioch, where the first Bible teachers were (Acts 13:1), and where the first missionary trip originated (Acts 13:1-6), and where the word "CHRISTIAN" originated (Acts 11:26). So, God chose to sort of preserve them through Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria, Egypt, even though God called HIS SON OUT of Egypt (Matt. 2)

    This makes it two streams of Bibles: the Egyptian translations from Alexandria, and the translation of those that brought about the Reformation and the worldwide Missionary Movement of the English speaking people.: The very Bible that Sunday, Torrey, Moody, Finney, Whitfield, Wesley used

    Someone on here had asked where did God promise to preserve His word. Psalms 12:6,7.

    May God be true and every man a liar.
     
    #1 Johathan01, Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you ever bother to think things through for yourself or do you just parrot the fables that others have taught you as truth?

    I would suggest that instead of wasting your time asking silly questions and raising false assertions that have been answered dozens if not hundreds of times here, you take the time to use the search option, learn and grow wise.
     
  3. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0

    Mexdeaf, as usual you offer nothing in the way of substantiation. All you do is complain and respond with hostility, It seems to be the common response on here. But it further gives credence to what I say. You guys have no answers so you resort to attacking the poster. Show me the fables!!

    I thought we were all Christians on here?
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Okay, lets talk about original manuscripts. Are the original manuscripts of the KJV irrelevant since none are extant?

    How do we know for example whether the 1611 rendering of 1 John 5v12 or the later renderings are correct?

    Must one have 'the sonne' (1611) or 'the Son of God' (later revisions) in order to have eternal life?

    How do we know without the original KJV manuscripts?
     
    #4 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  5. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are rehashing and asking the same questions that have already been dealt with in previous threads. Yet is this still the best you can do, point out typos and spelling changes? And how is this the same as changing the text to mean something different or changes to doctrine?

    English spelling was not uniform until the late 1700’s. Typographical errors in the 1611 KJV were removed in 1629 and 1638 by the translators themselves. Later in the 1700s the spelling was made uniform. 'Sonne' and 'Son' in the 1611 were both changed to 'Son of God' in the 1700's. So what's the problem?

    Each MV that comes out, is re-translation of a re-translation. None of which agree with the others, just like the manuscripts they come from.

    Many on here claim they like the KJV, just hate KJV Onlyism. Yet all you guys do is tear the KJV apart with total disrespect to God.

    This is just a smokescreen people use who do not believe any Bible in any language as being the 100% true and complete words of God.

    Can you point to one "version" of the Bible that you believe is perfect and inspired? Can you please answer that?
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    The spelling doesn't bother me - but the not knowing if the words 'of God' ares supposed to be there. Since we don't have the original manuscripts how do we know.

    So you admit that the KJV1611 had mistakes? Was God too weak to protect his word from the typesetters and printers?

    I won't respond to your personal implication that I disrespect God. I won't sink to that level.

    I will answer your question - no translation is perfect, as evidenced by the admitted mistakes in the original KJV 1611.
     
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, let me go point by point and substantiate my disagreement with your thinking. Even though it is likely a waste of time since your mind is made up.

    #1- You approach this subject from the viewpoint that the KJV is the ONLY true Bible. Not even the KJV translators believed this.

    #2- You repeat lies against other translations without foundation. Lies that have been proven untrue on this forum again and again. Lies that other people have fed you. You do know that to repeat a lie is gossip, correct?

    #3- You equate being anti-KJVO with not being a Christian, as implied by your last statement. I would never make that statement to you.

    I remember when I used to think that I knew it all on this subject also. I finally learned to research for myself and to be willing to change if I found out that what I had previously believed was wrong.
     
    #7 Mexdeaf, Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Game On

    Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named A-pollos,born at Alexandria,and eloquent man,and mighty in the Scriptures,came to Eph e-sus."

    I'll quote that from the real Bible 2011 NIV :"And the words of the Lord are flawless,like silver purified in a crucible,like gold refined seven times. You,Lord, will keep the needy safe and will protect us forever from the wicked."
     
  9. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be fair and honest, you are the only one saying that.

    No one on here is saying God was UNABLE...

    I've listened to this drivel from many preachers for many years. Typically? They are full of hatred toward others, don't show forth much grace toward others, unless they are just like them, controlling, and judgmental.

    Most of the problem here is that some worship the Book and Version and spend nearly their entire time and life speaking about it. And I know you all who bash others about KJVO look for something just like this that I and others say so you can go on a tirade with the obligatory "amens" that you seek.

    Let's Worship the God of Scripture, not a "scripture god."

    If you want to be zealous about your version, then good for you, but the putting words in others mouth that they believe God is unable is disrespectful, and quite honest a beligerency that is not needed.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    WOW! Do you ever need to do some homework! Forget commentaries. Forget preachers who prepare their sermons by studying the original languages. The KJV is the standard. Anything that deviates from it is in error. I understand. We're all to be in a state of blissful unawareness. We ought to have less information.We need to be uninformed to do God's will. We need to follow the uneducated dictates of the KJVO crowd. Got it.
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jonathan, to save possible confusion, could I ask you to confirm that you mean Psalm 12.6-7 is fulfilled only in the Authorised Version/ King James Version of 1611? If you do mean that, how do you know, from the bible itself, that the psalm was speaking of a particular translation? Indeed, if we look at the whole psalm, it seems far more likely that the "them" of verse 7 are "the faithful" of verse 1, the "poor and needy" of verse 5:
    1. To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David. Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 6. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 8. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (Ps 12:1-8 AV)
    But even if verse 7 is about the preservation of God's words, why do you seem to restrict such preservation to a translation made in 1611? Why not those other English translations before and since that also use the same text as the 1611 translators used?
     
    #11 David Lamb, Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  12. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    God used men to write His Holy Scriptures. Men will make mistakes with type and spelling. This changes nothing as far as inspiration.

    You wrote that no translation is perfect. Perhaps you over concern yourself with the spellings and typos, although this does not change the fact that its still the inspired word of God.. Therefore you admit that you don't believe God preserved His word. Thank you for answering.
     
  13. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God is able to preserve His word, (And of course He is) why do many on here believe we do not have a 100% inspired bible anywhere on earth?

    I am not talking about "version." I am talking about the very Word of God. Not the books that has man's tampering and tries to pass themselves off as the WORD OF GOD. . Not one person has addressed anything I said in the OP. Not one has answered the questions. What I see are a lot of bible agnostics. How can we worship God if we don't know what He says. Jesus said: "Thy Word is Truth. Which Word? These diluted, altered bible versions?

    How does one worship the God of Scriptures if one does not possess a bible that tells us all about God, the sin problem and why Christ came and died for for the world? This very Book is about the Gospel. How can you even know the doctrine of God if you use a version that has made changes, or leaves out Jesus name in certain verses or even demotes Him?
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Not according the corrupt definition of preservation required by those who hold to onlyism who themselves admit that God allows mistakes in their Bibles and cannot preserve a PERFECT word from a lowly typesetter's mistakes.

    Who is stronger - God or the typesetter?

    You admit that the KJV1611 left out two of God's words - how then can it be trusted for all the rest?
     
    #14 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  15. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,185
    Likes Received:
    370
    I find this a shocking statement. The originals are what God wrote. How could they be irrelevant? You are stating that God's work is irrelevant? Wow.

    God sent His Son to Egypt for His protection and preservation. He did the same with Joseph. Why do we doubt He could do the same for His Word?

    What you have created is a God who stopped working to be sure that His Word is available to all mankind. You have a God who said "Whew! Now that THAT is done, I can rest." You have a church who is incapable of being used by God to be sure that we can know the Scriptures and a church that has no one who is faithful to Him and cannot look at all that God has provided and see that the Lord is good and has given us even more evidence that what we have of the Word is faithful, accurate and good. That is just sad.
     
  16. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Friend, thousands are being saved, and that's happening using other versions than the KJB.

    God still does His Work in spite of your demanding that it all be done using only a KJB.

    All your worry and panic about this won't change one thing, and the bottom line is God is going to save people regardless of what you think about it, nor does He consider what you think about which version was used in preaching the Word to them unto their salvation.

    Relax. God is in control. Not you. Not tantrum hate filled preachers who can't stand anyone else using Scripture that don't say "KJV" on the spine. Not me. He is in control. All your complaining and demanding of the KJVO to be used is only schismatic, and devisive, and frankly, self-centered. Gods saved many many people His way for many many years before you came on the scene and using things like the ESV and NASB and even the NIV. (Oh no!!!)

    You should probably get an NASB or ESV and witness with that. But do it secretly, lest the KJVO sect findeth thee out, and desireth to re-circumciseth thou, and yea, sheareth thine wool coat, in hope that thine wool groweth back unto their liking. Amen.

    :thumbsup:
     
    #16 preacher4truth, Jun 20, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2011
  17. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,629
    Likes Received:
    158
    Hmmm, probably would preserve it in Hebrew. Certainly not in a language as dynamic and changing as English.

    :tonofbricks::tonofbricks:
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You're coming up with new terminology. What is more important is savingly knowing Christ. Anyone who is a true Christian is not an agnostic --no matter about your quaint neologisms.

    The Word of God which is not only encapsulated in an Anglican Version centuries old but in modern versions which the Lord has seen fit to bless us with.

    It sounds as if you are deluded. What doctrines have been diluted and altered?

    What you need to do is do some research yourself and find out if the NIV,HCSB,NLTse,NASBU and ESV have watered-down any doctrine. Don't you even know about ther translators of these versions (and there are many more)? They are godly scholars who reverence God and all the doctrines of the Bible.

    You are seriously in trouble when you come on the BB and proceed to lecture us as if we are liberal and possibly even non-Christians posing as Baptists. You need to set yourself down and study. Compare versions for yourself. Then,after some time off --come on back and issue a public apology and tell us that you spoke out of ignorrance and wish to now study before making pronouncements.
     
  19. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the major translations tell all about God, the sin problem and why Christ came & died for the world. Not one misses the mark when it comes to the gospel. I have fought against those on the BB that criticize the KJV and I also fight against those who lie about other versions, because the goal should be to know the truth and speak the truth.
    You will never convince anyone that the KJV is the only bible fit for use by telling lies. It only destroys your testimony.

    There are errors in the KJV, one being in Acts 12:4 where the word "pascha" is tranlated "easter". The correct translation is "passover".
     
  20. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well...
    The original manuscripts ONLY ones that were inspired by Holy Spirit, and were the Ones kept from ANY errors/mistakes/wrong doctrines/ etc while being written...

    The copies were NOT inspired as originals were, but WERE preserved by God to keep extant essentially a "close to 100%" copy of the originals, and ARE infallible in all that they teach/record/say to us today...

    JUST the Greek/Hebrew texts may calim to be infallible/inerrant though , not ANY translation made from them...

    just ask the translaters of the 1611, they would agrre that even theirs was not "perfect/infallible/only" version for Church today!

    Again, why not say the Bishop/Geneva/etc were just preserved same much as KJV was?
     

Share This Page

Loading...