A complete Bible is NOT necessary to trust God, nor for preservation!

Here is a famous verse that the enemies of Christ use to teach that Jesus was a liar.

KJB- John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

RSV- John 7:8 Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

In the KJB Jesus said "I go not up yet" to this feast, and then in verse 10 he goes to the feast.

But the RSV makes Jesus to appear to be a liar by leaving out the word "yet". He clearly says he is not going to this feast according to the RSV, and then in verse 10 he goes up.

Awhile back I posted a Muslim website where the author used this very verse to argue that the scriptures show Jesus was a liar. He couldn't do that with the KJB.

But you will blow that off and call it a "minor" difference. :laugh:

 

I think the phrase "you can't see the forest for the trees" comes to mind.

 

I've never heard that argument from anyone other than MV'ers!

 

Yes, it's a false argument. Up until 1881 there was basically only one Bible used by all non Catholic denominations, the King James Bible.

Those who support the MVs like to argue that cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses used the KJB. Well, of course, that is all they had when they originated in 1879. The same with the Mormons who started around 1830.

What they do not like to mention is that the JWs abandoned the KJB and wrote their own version (NWT) of scriptures based on the Critical Text. :laugh:

They didn't like the KJB, they felt the CT far more friendly and supportive toward their error.

 

Your assertion is false. Bible skeptics can and do use the KJV to argue for this contradiction. Here is just one example.

 

Well, he would be wrong. The KJB does not contradict itself, but the RSV does. The KJB says Jesus said "I go not up YET to this feast". Jesus did not say he was not going to the feast, he simply said he was not going yet.

But he would be correct using the RSV. The RSV says Jesus said he was not going to this feast, and then two verses later goes. And notice he quotes the RSV.

 

But that is exactly what they did, they used the same Critical Text all the Modern Versions are based upon to write the New World Translation.

The Mormons are a different story altogether. They try to portray themselves as genuine Christians, thus the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". They carry around the KJB to appear to be real Christians. But they clearly break God's command by adding to his Word with the Book of Mormon which they consider superior revelation to the KJB.

 

1. He quotes both. In both cases he sees it as Christ lying. And from a skeptics point of view, he is correct regardless of the version. Even the KJV rendering to a skeptic would make it appear that Christ is lying. So, to a skeptic, it doesn't really matter which version you present since he will tend to find fault with both.

2. And even if the skeptic grants that "yet" negates any contradiction between vs 7 and 10, he would still be reasonable in claiming that it represents and equivocation on Christ's part and, and such, may not represent Christ lying but does represent Him as being deceptive. And, if one looks only at those 3 verses, then the skeptic has a valid point.

3. However, if one looks at the larger context, one realizes that the supposed contradiction in the RSV and the supposed deception in the KJV are the result only of insisting on looking only at those 2 verses. Certainly in either the KJV and RSV rendering there appear to be some difficulties when one looks only at those two verses. Look at the larger context however and we see that Christ's statement was about going or not, but about going publicly or not.

Read the preceding verses in the chapter and we see that the topic is not about going to the feast per se, but about going to the feast publicly. His disciples urge Him to go and show the miracles to his followers, to go and make known to the world that He is the Messiah. Christ's response is that it is not yet His time - not that it wasn't His time to go to a feast, but that it wasn't His time to go to such an event publicly demonstrating the fact that He was the Messiah.

So, in context, His statement in vs. 8 is not that He isn't going at all, but that He isn't going publicly. If anything, the RSV makes this more clear than the KJV. The "yet" in the KJV makes it seem that His going or not is at issue when in fact the context make very clear that the issue is whether He will go publicly or not.

Contrary to the KJVO logic, this "yet" should not be seen at a clarification that He is just waiting till later in the day/week to go. Instead, this "yet" should be seen as referring to His coming publicly to Jerusalem at a later date - that is, when His death was drawing near

4. What really bugs me about the your argument above is that it grants the error that the skeptic makes in the first place - that one can look only at vs 8-10 to understand what is really going on. The proper response is NOT that the KJV renders it better, but that the skeptic was wrong in the first place to ignore the larger context. Just as the skeptic is wrong in ignoring context to show fault with Scripture, so are you wrong in ignoring context to show fault with the RSV. Take the proper approach - look at the context - and any difficulty vs. 8-10 presents for the RSV, much less for the Bible, disappears.

 

Now for the important question...can either of you (or anyone for that matter) cites a source which supports your assertion. (By source, I mean some authority or study or demonstration, not someone else simply making the bald assertion themselves.) I have heard both claims but have yet to see any evidence one way or the other. In fact, from what I can tell, *both* claims are likely either false or misleading.

 

Concerning #91: So, if I'm not mistaken you are saying that the argument is a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty?

 

No, not necessarily. Intellectual dishonesty is only present if one tries to support their argument by *purposefully* adding or suppressing lines of inquiry or data. Inconsistency or fallacies of reasoning do not rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty, else we would all be intellectually dishonest. Intellectual honesty does not require that one *be* consistent always, but that one *try* to be consistent always.

Now if one knew that there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for the supposed contradiction in the RSV rendering such as I pointed out, and yet they still insisted on bringing up the supposed contradiction, then that would probably rise to the level of intellectual dishonesty. One might disagree that such a resolution has sufficiently been demonstrated, but to present the supposed contradiction as if the resolution didn't exist when they knew full well it did would be intellectually dishonest.

FWIW, intellectual dishonesty is extremely hard to demonstrate in someone else. Unless there is an preponderance of evidence otherwise, it is generally better to reserve it for self-examination. IMO at least.