MUST we have only one text?

Play with God's inspired speaking? I just wonder.

 

See bold above. That is how I researched on them for many years. I FOUND that the KJV is most accurate translation over modern versions.

 

The King's English does not compete with common Greek.

 

If one adds to the original text then you have a corrupted text.

 

yes they BOTh can be the critical greek texts to us from God for today, as inspiration ONLY was unto the originals, but the Lord has allowed enough of those originals due to the vast manuscripts and others items preserved/discovered by us, that effectively either greek text could be seen as being essentially the originals to us for today, either valid to use for translation purposes!

 

He is correct that they cannot be different and yet also the same.

But there are more than two possibilities (underlined above). Winman has been more careful in the past when stating the possibilities, but he left at least two out. A third possibility is that they each have added AND left out words. This is highly probable.

Which one left out the most words AND also added the most words is really the issue. Both texts are man-made amalgamations; neither can be proven to be pure. Winman does not like this likelyhood because it flies in the face of his idea of 'preservation'. The fourth possibility is an alternate text to the CT and TR, like the 'Majority Text'.

 

Also, sinc the originals ALONE were inspired directly by god, either Greek texts would be able to represent "close enough" to those originals in order to be able to claim they are the Word of God to us for today, either useful to be used as a translation basis!

 

Test was added in an effort to help others understand the text.

 

No, I said that concerning the KJB text and Critical text that either one is correct, or they are both false. I did not consider other texts, as it is generally accepted that these texts are the preserved word. But if you introduce another text it would still be the same, either one is correct, or they are all false.

But differing texts cannot be the same. It cannot be possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit verses such as the last 12 verses of Mark.

 

You mean the TR.

What about the Majority Text?

 

No, I meant to say the KJB text. In the past I have called it the TR, but then others ask, Which one? So, to avoid confusion I think it more accurate to call it the KJB text.


Majority text? What of it? The same rule would exist, there can only be one true and perfectly accurate text and the others corrupt, or they are all corrupt.

It seems that most here believe they are all corrupt. If so, finding the word of God has become like "Where's Waldo?" where we have to sort through many various texts and hope to find those parts that are the true and preserved word of God.

That is unacceptable to me, as God is not the author of confusion.

 

Makes about as much sense as saying being a non-Christian is following the truth because they are in the majority. More is not always better.

 

Who says that there has to be only one "perfect text"? It doesn't come from the Bible. Let's say it's the TR that matches the KJV. You know, the one that was produced after the KJV to match the KJV's textual choices. Let's say that one is perfect. Well, there wasn't a text that matched it previously? So was the Bible perfect before then? Yes. Was the Bible preserved before then? Yes. So those cannot be reasons.

The words that God gave us are perfect. God promised to preserve his Word. He has done that. I have a Bible. As long as anyone has a Bible, the Bible is preserved. The Bible never promises that someone would many years later compile a Greek text and be kept from error. Erasmus made Errors. Stefanus made errors. Beza made errors.

 

You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but your view is very illogical to me. It cannot be possible that the scriptures both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. Again, I use this passage because it is the most famous difference between the KJB and CT texts. I can't see how anybody can believe the scriptures should both contain and omit this passage.

There have always been many manuscripts. I read good books many years ago that went into detail how the KJB translators determined which manuscripts were scripture, and which were not. They rejected many books and manuscripts. I also read about the CT. I became convinced the KJB translators did a far superior job, and were more accomplished scholars.

But in the end it came down to faith. I believe Psa 12:6-7 and many other verses promise preservation. You might disagree. What can I say? You are entitled to believe what you want, but so am I.

 

I don't think you understood what I said. Nobody said that the Scriptures both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. Now it's true that either Mark did write those words or he didn't. It can't be both. Let's say the TR is right(which actually the CT includes these verses as do most translations). Mark didn't write those words. That doesn't mean that the TR is right in every place. That's my point. You are making a faulty assumption which says that one text has to always be right which simply isn't true nor consistent.

Well, the modern texts like UBS and NA have had many more manuscripts that the KJV translators had. The KJV translators used the Greek texts of the TR line. Mainly from Baza, but some from Erasmus and Stefanus as well. They just didn't have all the manuscripts that we have today.

How can you even say that when I just said I believe in preservation. Did you even read my post?

Now, go back and re-read my previous post. Your argument of preservation, which I believe, is invalid. You didn't address that.

 

The majority of Majority Text advocates do not use that last line of yours as a reason to go their route.

 

Most English versions of the Bible have about the same reading as the KJV in Ps.12:6. What makes you think those words apply specifically to the KJV family alone?

 

I already explained. I examined how both the KJB and the MVs came about, and was convinced the KJB is the preserved text.

But as I've always said, I believe this by faith. I am completely aware of those that argue against the KJB and why. I am also aware of the arguments against the CT. This issue will never be settled through scholarship or scientific proof, so if you believe God perfectly preserved his word, by faith you must choose one of the texts. I chose the KJB.

But I cannot hold that all texts are the preserved word of God, it is not possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit the famous passage in Mark 16. That is only an example, there are many other differences as you well know.

So, I approach with the assumption (which I freely admit) that one of the texts or versions out there is the preserved and pure word of God and the others are corrupt (because they are different), and then I simply try to locate and identify this text. I believe this can be done, because God warned against adding or diminishing his word, which implies the true text can be known and identified. I also do not believe God's word is hidden away somewhere, so it is likely that the choice is between the KJB or the MVs from the CT, these are the two major texts. I chose the KJB.

You may disagree with my logic and method, but this is how I have done it. I freely admit it is based on some presumptions, which I make through faith.

 

So is the Geneva translation 95% the Word of God and the NKJ 87% the Word of God? What percentages have you arrived at? Can people be saved who do not use the KJV (not to mention the majority of Bible readers who do not read English --let alone 400 plus year old English.

I don't believe the entire Word of God is hidden away somewhere either. In that case there would be a multitude of scrolls.

I do think that over time more discoveries will be made of even more ancient New Testament documents. I can't wait for the discovery of that cache! You ought to be thrilled with the prospect also.

You have a misplaced faith. It should be in the Lord alone;not a certain textual tradition.