Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

How can I give a decisive answer when I have not studied it enough?

You have done that too much. You should not be encouraging other to do it.

Why not interact with the textual evidence from the textual commentary and post something of substance that we can interact on?

It crosses my mind ... Do you even know what the textual commentary is?

 

Personally, I'm still wonderin' why most of those who would oppose these so-called "MVs" (without even knowing what a "MV" really is), never actually seem to cite or support any older (or other) version/edition that that of the KJV-1769??

How come so few ever actually seem to offer anything other than glossed-over, 'lipstick covered' phony "lip-service" in support of WYC, WYC-P, TYN, MCB, MATT, TAV, GRT, BISH, or GEN, and for the most part, the (actual) KJ-1611, to name some better known editions/versions?

And folks, please don't insult whatever intelligence, I may happen to possess, with any 'bait-and-switch' bit, by the allusion that it is really all about the texts (unspoken is that it is, almost invariably, the NT texts, that are referred to), when the same effective 'opposition' is given to the WES, WBT, YLT, DBY, KJII, KJ21, NKJV, TMB, or any of several other "MVs" that are based on exactly the same NT texts (as well as can be determined, for we do not actually know this to the nth detail, as God, in His providence, apparently allowed the translators' notes, records, and MSs of the 1611 Company to perish in the Great London Fire), as was the KJ-1611.

It is one thing to not prefer the, say, NIV, RSV, or NASB, because of the NT text from which these are translated and/or by which these are supported; it is another thing entirely, to be inconsistent, in opposition to such as the WBT, NKJV, or TMB (this last of which, BTW, has all the same 70 books, as did the KJ-1611), because of honest footnotes (the same sort of which are found as side-notes in any 'genuine' KJ-1611), when these and other versions were, in fact, translated from the same textual basis as was the KJ-1611, at least to my way of thinking. Not to mention, it is conveniently ignored that BISH lay directly behind the KJ-1611, and some renderings in the KJ-1611 come directly from the D-R, as well.

FTR, I generally much prefer my own copies of two particular editions of the KJV and NKJV, these being the two I effectively use exclusively, on anything remotely resembling a regular basis, although I will cite any English version, when faithful rendering is given to a particular text, and that version 'says' something in an extremely clear manner.

Also, FTR, I do not recall supporting the W/H text (or the TR, for that matter) against the MT, either, anywhere on the BB.

Ed

 

Just noticed this typo I made this AM. This should actually read"

"TMB (this last of which, BTW, has all the same 80 books, as did the KJ-1611)."

The KJ-1611 contained eighty (80) books, not 70 as I erroneously typed (and certainly not ONLY 66).

I apologize.

Ed

 

The Holy Spirit certainly does NOT teach KJVO! It aint in SCRIPTURE, so the HS doesn't teach it.

 

Really? You are practicing textual criticism. Your final authority isn't the Holy Spirit. You have not yet one time cited the Holy Spirit as your source. You have said it, but you haven't shown where the Holy Spirit has said what you say.

You have a gross misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit that is very close to a violation of the third commandment about taking the name of the Lord in vain. To take his name in vain means, among other things, not to use it for things he would not use it for. When you attach the name of the Holy Spirit to your personal conclusions, you are using his name lightly. I do not know of any place where the Holy Spirit has affirmed your positions. If you can show it to me from the Spirit, then I will agree. But you haven't yet done that. And that is a major problem.

How will you respond if I say the Holy Spirit has taught me that you are wrong, and that I should force you to agree with me? You can say, "Well he didn't say that." But how do you know? You can say, "He didn't tell me that." I can say, "You aren't listening." Seriously, how can you argue against me? You can't. The Holy Spirit becomes a cheap trump card for you to throw on the table when you can't actually argue using Scripture. That is taking his name in vain, and I am very uncomfortable with it. I may well be wrong and you right on this issue, but the Holy Spirit did not show you that. So let's back off those claims and be more careful about invoking the Holy Spirit.

 

I have heard the same thing from heretics too.

Did God give you a brain to think with and use or is that not valid?

 

Eliyahu, preach it !! Amen !!

 

"Ask anything in My name" gives no indication to whom we should direct our petitions. However, "Ask Me anything in My name" tells us exactly to whom we should direct our petitions. If we simpley "ask" we could be asking the wind, the rain or a rock for something. This is yet another example of someone supporting the KJV reading simply because it is the KJV reading. Eliyahu becomes his own authority when he declares modern Bible translations are wrong if they include the word "me."

 

You thought wrong when it comes to textual criticism. The Holy Spirit regenerates the mind to understand Scripture. He does not give specific teaching that is not in Scripture.

I don't think you grasp just how serious this is/

This was given to the apostles as a preauthentication of the NT. Remember they were the ones to whom Jesus said something.

There's nothing there to obey. It is a statement of fact. Not a command. And it was given to a particular group of people, not us. and it was said about the NT, not about textual criticism.

Of course not.

This is far more than you should be willing to say.

Where did the Holy Spirit say this?

Yes, provided it is from what the HOly Spirit actually said.

That is dealing with the indwelling Spirit of salvation.

No.

Yes, again that deals with salvation.

Yes, again that deals with salvation. "His Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God."

Yes, and we do that by following the Word.

This is to apostles in persecution, not to people in an internet forum.

Yes, I think so.

No of course not.

As you can tell, you didn't say anything of substance here, and very little of what you said was actually true. That is significant, and getting Askjo to give you an "Amen" isn't a sign of good things.

 

You have yet to show that your way is the way of the Holy Spirit. When you show me that, then we can move forward. You saying, “The Holy Spirit taught me this” is not convincing to me. You are going to have to use something the Holy Spirit actually said.

I think the bigger problem is you. I never said that obedience to the Holy Spirit is in salvation only. You can’t even read my words that were written a little while ago. How can we trust you with words that were written thousands of years ago?

I agree. I never said anything differently.

Yes, you are correct. You should not have claimed that because you do not have guidance from the Spirit on that matter.

Can you show any biblical evidence for this kind of teaching applying to textual criticism? That is the starting place. You actually have to show something the Holy Spirit said.

Yes, he does this through the Word.

Yes.

Probably not. But when you say something that is contrary to Scripture, or when you claim the Spirit for something the Spirit didn’t say, you are not being led by the Spirit. We know what the Spirit says by what he said in the word.

If you take words meant for one group and apply them to another, you won’t get the benefit of God’s word anyway. If the words weren’t written to apply to you, then you can’t claim them.

This is impossible.

But the problem is that Jesus didn’t say anything to you for the Spirit to bring to your remembrance. This is about the NT. The apostles would later be reminded by the Spirit of the teachings of Jesus and write them down for us.

Yes of course.

Show where the Holy Spirit says this. Your word is not convincing. Your own brand of textual criticism is just like everyone else’s. It is conclusions based on evidence. It isn’t Spirit revealed.

Yes indeed. Now, if you will listen to what the Bible says about textual criticism, you will be well on the way to working through this issue.

Reading what you are saying scares me because I don’t think you even understand the issues. You are claiming the Spirit’s revelation for something the Spirit didn’t say. That’s dangerous.

 

Eliyahu, you now have the dubious distinction of receiving an Amen from Askjo! Congratulations!

 

I have seen evidence of some giving their brains to Satan. Just read Romans 1

In most cases it is an excuse for forging ahead by telling themselves things they want to hear until they believe the lies they told themselves.

That has nothing to do with textual criticism

Could you point me to one case where Jesus ever dealt with the issue?

Non-Christians do textual criticism all the time and not just with the Bible. How do they have the Holy Spirit? Does that make them wrong?

Do you see any evidence that Jesus ever did textual criticism?

 

I don't know about that. There is a big difference in the way that we treat Scripture for sure.

Yes.

Yes

Not sure what your question is here. God is the only one who answers prayer. He uses a variety of means to do it. He doesn't answer them all. But he does answer some.

I don't think these answers will help much. At the end of the day, you still don't have any Scripture supporting the idea that the Holy Spirit tells you which textual variant to choose, and that is the issue here.

 

I'm gonna disagree on the emphasized part. I fully believe that God answers all prayer.

However, "No!", "Some Part!", "Maybe, if...!" and "Later!" are every bit as much valid answers as is "Yes!" even though any of those may not be what you and/or I are really wanting to hear.

Ed