Authority to call one version superior?

You're declaring the KJV reading superior in all these readings, Rufus. By what authority do you make this declaration? Since we don't have the original autographs you cannot say with 100% certainty which manuscripts are correct and which manuscripts aren't correct. I believe the ESV is just as accurate and faithful to its underlying texts as the KJVs are accurate and faithful to their underyling texts.

​

 

By what authprity do you declare all versions wrong if they don't agree with the KJVs? You're measuring all versions against the KJVs and not even trying to measure them by the manuscript evidence that exists.

 

It is by faith I believe we hold the word of God in our hands in various English Bible translations. It is by faith I believe God has preserved His word in various English translations understandable to people of every generation. It is by faith I believe God has the power tp preserve His word in various English Bible translations - not just one.

 

Cool.:thumbs: then your view is Biblical. Opinion and preference are not (however much one WANTS it to be) Biblical.

 

By what authority do you declare the NAS, NIV, etc superior to the NWT or the book of Mormon?

By what authority do you reject "Bel and the Dragon", yet include "Song of Solomon?"

You're measuring all versions against the manuscript evidence that exists, but what do you measure the manuscript evidence against? The autographs? I trow not!

Lacy

 

My apologies.

 

ESBO = Ecch Syndrome (Body Odor)?

Actually, Brother Mexdeaf - you appear to be a ESV Preferred.
To be ESVO you would have to be a militant for the ESV.
ESVP would be one who prefers the ESV but might use other
versions for specific purposes. Personally I'M KJV1611P
(I prefer the King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611) becasue
I have an electronic copy and a lot of my writings are on the
internet so I can use the electronic copy a lot (I use e-sword
and have a 3-bible display: Geneva Bible (1587),
KJV1611 Edition, KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers.
All I have to do is put the curser on the number and the
Strong's reading for that Hebrew or Greek word pops up.
If I want to use an actual KJV1769 reading of something,
I pop over to Crosswalk.com which has lots of Bibles.

(The only drawback is that the e-sword I have doesn't have
the Translator Margin notes, so I use my paper copy of the
KJV1611 Edition.)

I have the authority to call one version superior over another
because I'm a Priest of God (doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer)
and am competent before God to make such a decision (doctrine of
the Competency of the Believer).

 

Ed,

I was speaking TIC (and off topic, sorry.)

 

Soul Competency gives me the authority to say one version is
superior to another for ED.
I have no authority whatsoever over most people to tell them
what version they shall consider superior.

Right now I consider the KJV1611 Edition and it's
Translator Margin Notes to be superior for purposes of
posting on the internet and the Baptist Board (BB).

I consider the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)
to be thesuperior for purposes private devotions and Sunday School teaching.
The milage of others will vary.

 

TIC = to insure comedy?

I was also - on both accounts. I apologize also.
Back to the regularly scheduled topic:

Keith M (bold added by Ed): //I believe the ESV is just as accurate
and faithful to its underlying texts as the KJVs are accurate
and faithful to their underlying texts.//

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I note that Brother Keith M has the authority before God to
believe what he said he believes. I note I have the authority
before God to agree with Brother Keith M (when lead by God
to do so, as in this specific case).

 

Originally Posted by Ed Edwards

It is common for the Majority Texts to have ADDED
to the scripture by quoting from other scripture.

consider:

Romans 16:20b (ESV):
... The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

BTW, i didn't check my paper copy which has the
Translater Footnotes earlier but only my electronic copy which
has not the Translater Footnotes.

After Romans 6:23 the ESV has a footnote:

Some manuscripts insert verse 24: The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen

The ESV is faithful to it's source documents as
the KJVs were faithful to thier source documents
and both groups of translators performed Higher Criticism
documented in the Translater Footnotes (literally Translator
Margin Notes).


The Translators had the authority to note the results of their
Higher Critixilsm in Traanslator Footnotes and we have the
authority to believe or not to believe their choice.

 

Francis Turretin (1623-1687), a leading spokesman of the Reformation view of the Scriptures in Switzerland, declared: "The question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of the Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it" (Doctrine of Scripture, pp. 113-114).

 

Good sidestep there, Lacy! But you have lots of practice, don't you?

 

Lacy Evans:By what authority do you declare the NAS, NIV, etc superior to the NWT or the book of Mormon?

The valid Bibles you named follow their ancient sources rather closely, while we know the BOM was composed by a man, Joey Smith, & the NWT is a revision of the RV, made by Fred Franz & George Gangas to match the invented doctrines of the JW cult.

By what authority do you reject "Bel and the Dragon", yet include "Song of Solomon?"

The SOS has been included in Scripture since well before Christ came while Bel has not.

You're measuring all versions against the manuscript evidence that exists, but what do you measure the manuscript evidence against? The autographs? I trow not!

Lacy

Same LEGITIMATE way some KJVOs claim superiority for their fave version. THEY cannot prove the mss used for the KJV are superior to those used to make other versions.

Against WHAT do YOU measure the Textus Receptus, in any of its 30-plus versions?

 

You seem very confident that the canon has been set in stone since Adam.:saint:

There has in reality been a period of "purification".


Irenaeus (125-192):
Accepts the "Shepherd of Hermas", quotes "Wisdom", etc.

Origen (185-253):
Included "Epistle of Jeremiah", Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas.

Clement of Alexandria:
Included Revelation of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, Letter of Clement of Rome, "Preaching of Peter", and the "Teaching of the Apostles"

Muratorian Fragment (Lists Books accepted in Rome, A.D. 200): Includes Apocalypse of Peter

Cyprian:
No Hebrews, 2Peter, James or Jude

Eusebius (260-340):
Disputed 2 Peter, James, Jude, Revelation, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews, (and no Esther); He recognized 1 Clement

Athanasius Canon (298-373):
Listed Baruch as Jeremiah, along with the Epistle of Jeremiah. (Greek additions to Daniel). He had no Esther.

Council of Nicea (325 A.D.):
Included Book of Judith (see Jerome)

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389):
No Revelation

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (348-386):
Included Baruch in Jeremiah.

Chrysostom:
No Revelation, 2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude

Augustine (354-430):
Included Apocrypha.

Council of Laodicea (363):
No Book of Revelation. Baruch in the Canon.

Codex Sinaitic Manuscript (4th century):
Includes Barnabas & Shepherd of Hermas

Amphilochius of Iconium (d. 394):
"The Revelation of John some accept, but the majority call it uncanonical"

3rd Council of Carthage (397):
Included O.T. Apocrypha

Wycliffe's Bible (1382-1388):
Apocrypha scattered through it.

Luther (1483-1546):
No Esther; doubted James. F.F. Bruce claims he also doubted Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, giving them a secondary status.

Alexandrian Manuscript (5th century):
Includes Letters of Clement

In 1647, the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians.

Your overly defensive stance, however is not necessary. I will go away any time you like. But the arguments for the particular books of the Bible are the same (and have always been the same) as the arguments for the particular words of the Bible.




lacy

 

A better question is how does God deal with corruption in the Bible.

He certainly isn't freaked out by it. He just fixes it.

lacy