Willful Ignorance?

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

Now, I think we are going to have to discuss what is meant by "words". Let me ask you another question. Do you believe the punctuation in the KJV is part of what is preserved? Just a yes or no would be fine.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

I don't mind answering your questions, however you don't seem to like to answer any of mine. I asked you to provide scriptural support for God's approval of omittion/additions to his word. You have not provided this, nor has anyone else.

As to answer the question in the above quote, I will answer with this:

Matthew 5:17-20

In case you try to tell me this is only concerning the "law" of moses, as some have suggested, please also refer to:

Matthew 22: 29-33
John 5:39-47
John 6: 59-63
John 8:47,51
John 10
John 12:44-50
John 14: 23-24
John 16, and 17

All these scriptures pertain to how important our Lord's words are - every jot and every tittle. Also notice how many times "It is written" appears in scripture.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So, since there is no punctuation in the "original manuscripts that were God-breathed", how do YOU explain the addition of the punctuation?

 

You said I did not answer your question about additions and subtractions. This cannot be answered with a scripture simply because God never promised to "inspire" a "translator"....therefore there ARE corrupt translations out there. This is the reason we have to rely on scholars to piece together the manuscripts as closely as possible and TRY to determine what is in the original manuscripts.

The KJV translators did the SAME THING. The TR is relatively NEW and it has been modified many times itself. In fact, we do not even have the actual TR that was used by the original KJV1611.

I have a book that has a list of changes made over the years to the TR itself (the actual Greek) and you would be amazed at the number of changes.

In addition you are not understanding the meaning of "jot and every tittle.". If this were to refer to every single pen-stroke, as you seem to suggest, or every comma and every period, then you have a big problem on your hands in that the jots and tittles of the KJV has changed soooooo many times since 1611. Then you are going to have to pick a version and say "That version is the ONLY correct version...." otherwise your reasoning is flawed.

 

In case you try to tell me this is only concerning the "law" of moses, as some have suggested, please also refer to:

I won't do each one with more than one translation, but let's look at each one.

John 8:47,51

47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

In 47 are you implying that anyone here is "Not of God"? I certainly hope not. Again, how does this have anything to do with translations?

John 10
I'm not going to quote the entire passage. Again, what?

I'm not going to quote all of this.
John 16, and 17

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle </font>[/QUOTE]So, since there is no punctuation in the "original manuscripts that were God-breathed", how do YOU explain the addition of the punctuation? </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, my impression is that you are using these scriptures to "imply" that if I don't listen to God's Words in the KJV that I am not believing in God? I certainly hope that I am making a mistake in your assumption, but why quote these verses if that is not the case?

Again, how do you explain the lack of punctuation in the original manuscripts and the sudden appearance word both word breaks and punctuation in modern (KJV) translations?

 

Phillip: In case you try to tell me this is only concerning the "law" of moses, as some have suggested, please also refer to:

I won't do each one with more than one translation, but let's look at each one.

Okay, my impression is that you are using these scriptures to "imply" that if I don't listen to God's Words in the KJV that I am not believing in God? I certainly hope that I am making a mistake in your assumption, but why quote these verses if that is not the case?

Again, how do you explain the lack of punctuation in the original manuscripts and the sudden appearance word both word breaks and punctuation in modern (KJV) translations? </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Brain-dead software (no offense board owner--I use the same stuff.) Won't let me correct my quotes and fix my errors. In one place I have "Phillip:" where it should be Michelle who said: "In case you try to tell me this is only concerning the "law" of moses, as some have suggested, please also refer to:" Michelle said that. I didn't, and I can't correct it. I did say the second sentence after that.

Otherwise I think everybody can figure it out. I wrote in the scriptures that Michelle conveniently didn't write (just used the reference) so that we could see that they have nothing to do with translations.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

So, since there is no punctuation in the "original manuscripts that were God-breathed", how do YOU explain the addition of the punctuation?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

The english language includes punctuation. We would not be able to communicate properly without it.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Here's a simple question:

Did the translators receive divine inspiration in determining where to place commas, periods, colons, etc?

 

The Greek and Hebrew didn't and they communicated just fine. My point is, that to do a translation, WORDS change. THe KJV is NOT the same as the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. Unless you want to say that the translators or the revisors were inspired!!!!!???

 

In the case that the translators and revisors are inspired---then we have a latter day revelation and God's statement that His Word is available for all Generations must be in error because before it was corrected by the KJV, it was different. (not one jot or tittle--remember?) The KJV DOES contain things not in the original God-Breathed manuscripts, right?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:


The KJV translators did the SAME THING. The TR is relatively NEW and it has been modified many times itself. In fact, we do not even have the actual TR that was used by the original KJV1611.

I have a book that has a list of changes made over the years to the TR itself (the actual Greek) and you would be amazed at the number of changes.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

If we do not have the TR as of today, then how can the scholars of today make claims that there were changes? The KJV, and many other english Bibles are a translation of the Recieved Text. In fact, most Bibles from all areas of the world even prior to the KJV and prior to versions based upon the critical text have been based upon the Recieved Text. The Recieved Text is God's preserved words. The critical greek text has two manuscripts in the Alexandrian family that undergirds the modern versions, and these texts were rejected by the churches. These were not represented in the Recieved Text, although there are areas where they agree with the recieved text, and in many cases agree more with the Recieved Text, than with one another (Vaticanus and Sinaticanus). Don't ask me to prove it. This is what I have read about it. I am not a scholar. And quite honestly, I do not even need to know this information and didn't, to know that the KJV is the preserved word of God for english speaking people today, and that there is no way that those versions that have omitted verses that have been long believed, taught, preached, lived, were only additions to God's preserved words.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Thanks sdnesmith, I was having a little trouble getting my thoughts into words. I've been too close to the forest for too long.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------Phillip quoted:

In the case that the translators and revisors are inspired---then we have a latter day revelation and God's statement that His Word is available for all Generations must be in error because before it was corrected by the KJV, it was different. (not one jot or tittle--remember?) The KJV DOES contain things not in the original God-Breathed manuscripts, right?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

In all sincerety, why do you focus upon what the origional manuscripts might have read, instead of focusing on what God has wonderfully preserved for many in generations past unto this day, and trust and believe it? Why do you need to prove so badly, that the serious omittions that are evident in the modern versions are okay? Do you think it is okay to omitt such truths that God has provided for you and for generations past, and then call them additions? I don't understand this line of thinking/reasoning.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Thanks sdnesmith, I was having a little trouble getting my thoughts into words. I've been too close to the forest for too long. </font>[/QUOTE]You're very welcome. Remember, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Dina, and to all.

I just wanted to make a comment, on something I have been thinking about, and praying about, and I wanted to share it with you. If a person made their mind up about the KJV being too difficult to understand, and decided to read a modern version, I would say "Amen" to that. The reason I say this, is because it is better for them to have most of God's words, than none at all. So I hope this will help others to understand me, and what I believe better.

May the Lord richly bless you all and may you continue to grow in his grace.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle,
I am proud of you. I know it probably took a lot for you to make a step here. You see, I don't just debate for the sake of debating. I commend you when we agree on something. (I don't necessarily agree on the "all of God's Word, but we can work on that one.)

 

Michelle,
Let me tell you what my mother believed. This may help you with understanding my side. Mom always believed that since it was very unusual for the King to declare a version of the Bible for the common folks when he gave authorization to translate the Bible, that God's hand was in on the translation of the KJV.

Now, do not get me wrong. She understood that it was a translation, but she also felt that God's power was involved in providing the common English speaking people with Bibles.

However, let me quickly add that when newer translations came out that she had no problem with using these translations.

Personally, like Grannygumbo, she read the KJV (it was THE Bible--to her). But, when I started reading a NASB, she thought it was great.

In fact, when I was a child, I read a lot. Always did. I had difficulty reading the KJV simply because of my age. Good News for Modern Man was just printed (and yes, it is probably not a good translation or paraphrase--I honestly don't know that much about its background), but I would sit in church and read it like a story book. I realized for the first time that, here were the stories I was hearing about in Bible school. But, it was actually in "a Bible" and I could understand it. Believe me, I would ignore the preaching and read and read and read. I loved the book.

When I was older, I would discuss the translations with my mother. At that time (early 70's late 60s time-frame) I understood the NASB was one of the most accurate translations available then. The Living Bible came out, and YES we knew it was a paraphrase, but again I could devour the books very quickly. My main Bible for Bible study was the NASB (at the recommendation of my pastor who used the KJV during Bible study). He thought that the NASB was a good literal translation and that is how I got started with it.

Personally, my weakest support for a MV goes to the NIV. Right now, my strongest support goes to my ESV.

I know you may disagree with me, but I just wanted to share a little bit about my background as it concerns MV Bibles. I always keep a KJV nearby.

It is probably more habit than anything, but I think a lot of us still use the KJV as a reference because there is no doubt it contains the Word of God. Lately, however, as I have becoming better at Greek, I will start checking out the translation to different manuscripts and Greek compilations. With the ESV I have done this often because the ESV will say things that do not seem to be the same as the KJV---only after I check with the Greek (including the TR) do I find that the ESV is a very accurate translation.

My final conclusion is that God's hand is apparently in on many translations in English. I do not limit the power and capability of God to just one book that is difficult to understand if you did not grow up with it like Granny and my mother did. A person does not have to be saved to be used by God. Just look at history.

Like Paul says, if they are preaching the Word of Jesus Christ they are not against us.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

Like Paul says, if they are preaching the Word of Jesus Christ they are not against us.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

To this I say Amen! I also thank you for sharing your testimony with me, and I praise the Lord that he has come into your life and saved you.

As I have said, my understanding regarding this issue has been from a personal conviction upon my heart from the Lord and from the scriptures and from the evidence. It is not for me to dictate to you nor anyone else what you use. I have said this from the beginning of my posts. I also never believed, nor do believe that those who use modern versions to be unsaved, unspiritual, etc. I hope by saying this again helps clear up any misunderstandings. I know many a good christian people who use modern versions. The churches they attend is another story, however they are good christian people, and wonderful neighbors.

I just don't understand something you said. You said that you have/had a hard time understanding the KJV, but you don't have a problem understanding the greek? This doesn't make any sense to me, because it takes many people a very long time, sometimes much of their life to get a basic knowledge and understanding of a language. My husband tells me this alot, that those in China, and other countries, have been taught english language from the time they were young children, and still have problems grasping many of the idioms in our language. How if they have studied english for so many years, and still not fully understand english, can you be able to fully understand the ancient greek without even having native speakers to rely on? Not only that, but the greek used then was much further removed from the greek of today. The tranlsators of the KJV were much closer to that time than those of today.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

The Chinese can understand Hebrew much better than we can. But we can understand Greek much better than they can. Greek culture is closer to our culture and the Hebrew culture is closer to the Chinese.

 

I appreciate your humility and sense of humor. Obviously you have certainly been wise enough to do what you have done. From what I read I can’t help but believe that you are a person who seeks after God and puts Him first. How can one who knows God ever say He doesn’t exist and not trust Him? We can be sure that God knows what he is doing even when we don’t. Isn’t it amazing in the midst of our ignorance and often times lack of wisdom He gives us the necessary wisdom we need.

That kind of walk with God doesn’t need loads of intellectual knowledge but true humility. From what I read you have it. How can I not admire anyone who knows God. Isn’t true humility knowing who your God is anyway. When we know God we are bold as a lion.