Featured Where is God's preserved word in the Original Langauges?

Thus the reason for the science of textual criticism. Look for the Bible that meets the criteria of what is closest to the originals, or use the best extant copies and learn Hebrew and Greek to preach from.

 

Who cares what you are fed up with?

 

Welcome to the forums Jordon,

Concerning the verses you referenced:

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. Psalm 12:6–7 (AV 1873)

If you believe the "them" in verse 7 refers to the 'pure words', then they are kept by God - Where are they kept? - it's not told.

The second verse you referenced:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 (AV 1873)

As quoted by Jesus from Deuteronomy 8:3 –

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (AV 1873)

The Lord makes the point that obedience to God takes precedence over self-gratification.

Before you get all riled up over being 100 percent sure that every word is faithful to the original – be faithful to what you have before you.

As the translators of the KJV wrote in their preface:

Rob

 

Hi Jordan, and welcome to BB.

I believe you can find the preserved word of God in English in the King James Bible. :thumbsup:

And of course it is impossible for the word of God to both contain and omit the last twelve verses of Mark 16, but there are a bunch of folks here that have the ability to believe the illogical and impossible. :laugh:

 

And in many other versions in English as well as in many foreign languages.

I believe that the KJV is the Word of God despite a number of additions. The extras are not the Word of God --the rest of it is.

You believe that translations based on the Critical Text are "missing" many verses. I believe you are wrong --but you should grant that what the modern versions (based on the CT) do have is indeed the Word of God. Besides,many of the (in your view) "missing verses" are still found in the modern version texts through marginal and footnotes.

 

Pretty stinkin' rotten question coming from one who believes that in some places every God-preserved record of his written Word is corrupt, every Greek manuscript passed down to us by our forefathers, every Latin manuscript, every Coptic manuscript, every Syriac manuscript, in fact every version ever made from any Greek witness present or now lost, every Father who ever quoted the passage, all of them are corrupt. So you have the audacity to ask this question after attacking the very foundational basis of God's preserved Word? How do you get up and look yourself in the mirror every day with your pathetically low view of the preservation of God's Word? What a hypocritical thing to ask us such a question in light of your own shallow view of the preservation of God's Word, in fact that God failed altogether to preserve his Word in some place until Beza conjured up the right reading out of his BRAIN in 1565, and then you have the audacity to lamblast textual criticism, which was practiced by J. W. Burgon (and imperfectly by Beza by the way), anyway by Burgon whom you've apparently read and quote with approval (another one of your many self-contradictions)! I don't think so, buddy.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.

Again, that is your opinion, I disagree.

Yes, I do believe the CT is missing many words, verses, and even entire passages.

Do I believe the CT contains "some" of the word of God? Yes, but I do not believe it is the preserved word of God.

Now, if I saw an ad in the paper for a preserved Ford Mustang in the newspaper and it looked like this;



I would call that false advertising. Yes, that is a Ford Mustang, but it is not preserved.

Of course, one thing I have discovered at BB is that lots of folks here have their own special definitions for words.

 

The original languages of Greek and Hebrew is the essence of preservation of the word of God. Any other word of God in another language is not preservation but is the word of God by derivation (out of and from the original language manuscripts).

I found a jar of jam in an out building which had been preserved a year ago, the label said "Blackberry 2012"

When I opened it sure enough it was blackberry preserves not strawberry. It hadn't changed over the course of the year.

The preservation of God's word MUST be of a similar nature - Hebrew and Greek and none else, it cannot change.


From the Translators to the Reader :
King James Bible AD1611

 

This view is refuted by scripture itself, the Ethiopian eunuch was not reading Hebrew scriptures, but a translation into Greek from the Hebrew, but scripture itself calls what he was reading "scripture".

Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Almost all scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the Hebrew;

 

I agree in part, but any translation of the scripture is scripture by derivation not inspiration but still, I personally can call it the word of God as did the KJV translators themselves (in another place).


HankD

 

According to a consistent application of your own claims, it evidently would not be in the original language manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based since those manuscripts were not perfect and had some copying errors.

It seems that your reasoning would undermine the authority of the very original language sources from which the KJV was translated.

 

You have not proved that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation.

Are you merely assuming that in order to rationalize your KJV-only opinions?

Your speculation or assumption does not refute what the Scriptures teach about inspiration and preservation.

If your assumption was correct, perhaps it only rufutes your own KJV-only opinions since it would show that any translation with derived or secondary authority can still be called scripture.

 

Are you in effect suggesting that those who preached from the 1537 Matthew's Bible or the 1560 Geneva Bible with their few textual differences with the KJV and with their many translational differences with the KJV did not have a clean conscience?

Do KJV-only advocates believe that all the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were the word of God in English in their day even though they had hundreds and thousands of words that were different from each other or do they claim that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not the word of God?

Perhaps you should be fed up with inconsistent KJV-only reasoning that depends upon fallacies and upon use of unrighteous divers measures.

 

Oh goodie! KJVO and NIVO are going to go head to head. How fun!:1_grouphug:

 

I simply showed you what scholars have said. Albert Barnes said it was a Greek translation.

Now, I don't know, I wasn't there, but I have shown you that quite a few scholars believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation.

That scripture can be restated by the Holy Spirit is known and perfectly acceptable.

There are other examples, such as when Joseph spoke in Egyptian before his brothers. We are told what he said in Hebrew, which is a translation, and yet it is scripture.

Gen 42:7 And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them; and he said unto them, Whence come ye? And they said, From the land of Canaan to buy food.

12 And he said unto them, Nay, but to see the nakedness of the land ye are come.

14 And Joseph said unto them, That is it that I spake unto you, saying, Ye are spies:

I could show you much more that Joseph said, all being an interpretation;

Gen 42:22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

We are told Joseph's exact words in Hebrew here, but Joseph spoke these words in Egyptian. This shows that a translation from the original language can be scripture.

 

Your assumption that those examples excuse your KJV-only theory is incorrect.

The giving of the original language words by inspiration to the prophets and apostles even if those given words had originally been said in another language is all part of the original miracle of the giving of direct revelation and Scripture.

You have not actually demonstrated that the Scriptures teach that the very different matter of the translating of the Scriptures after the end of the giving of new revelation with the completion of the New Testament and thus the end of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration is the same thing as the examples to which you appeal.

Your reasoning is also inconsistent and faulty because you likely do not suggest that the translating work of the earlier pre-1611 English translators in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision or even the later translating work of the NKJV translators involved the same processes as those in the making of the KJV and had to result likewise in perfect translations.

Do your KJV-only opinions depend upon the use of unrighteous divers measures that use different measures concerning the making of the KJV than for the making of other translations of the Scriptures?

The KJV is the word of God in English in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.