Between the autographs and Bible translations

Did you know some of the translation
selections selected for the KJV1611
were from the margin notes of the source?

 

Askjo:A scholar, D. A. Waite said, "there is no proof of the fact of the TR derived from the original writings. We must accept it by faith.

"There is no proof that the Alexandrian mss are not derived from the originals. We must reject them by faith".


The texts from which the mvs are derived was suspended from being copied. They stopped copying them because they knew they were corrupt!!"

Any thoughts?

When Dr. Waite was pinned down a few years ago, being asked to provide EVIDENCE for his KJVO view, he said it largely depended upon faith. He could NOT give any reason why one shouldn't have faith that God preserved/presented/provided his word in English in several versions over the years.

 

It's ironic, isn't it, that the KJVO crowd criticizes the modern texts for having footnotes of differing wordings when their own KJV originally had the exact same thing in its margins! So much for the perfect translation!

 

Amen, Brother Danrusdad -- Preach it!

Yes, that is ironic.

 

Askjo said:

A scholar, D. A. Waite said, "there is no proof of the fact of the TR derived from the original writings. We must accept it by faith.

So why can't we accept by faith that God has preserved his word not only in the KJV, but in the multiplicity of manuscripts, texts, and versions in English and any other language?

Why do the KJV-onlyists get to define the content and object of faith for everyone else? It's like letting the lunatics run the asylum.

 

OHOH, this thread sounds a lot like that Baptist distinctive of Soul Liberty!

HankD

 

Yes, the first sentence may be as close to the truth as Waite has ever been on this topic. The last thought (about not copying certain ones) fits right in with the first statement ... there is no proof of it. He accepts that not by faith, but by mere conjecture ...

 

I'm just curious as to what your definition of faith (As far as it affects your trust in the veracity of the Bible you have in your hand) is Brother Ransom.

Lacy

 

No. In fact, there is significant proof that the TR was not derived from the original writings- such as readings not found in the Greek texts or that are only found in extremely late mss that point back to the Latin Vulgate as a probable source.

"Faith" that is in contradiction to fact is not faith but rather superstition.

First, MV's are derived from the whole of the mss evidence. You or Waite or even I may not like the way the evidence was weighted but the versions were not derived from totally from Aleph and B (I assume Waite is talking about the Alexandrian type of which these are the two chief texts). Sometimes they go against the critical text although they usually include a foot note (out of honesty like the KJV translators did).

Second, no one knows for sure how these mss were preserved nor why (or even if) they stopped being copied. We do know that these mss were trapped behind the wall of Muslim expansion for awhile. The Christian scriptures in these areas stopped being copied because there weren't any Christians. The Alexandrian text whether originally accurate or not has been frozen in time to an extent. We also know that Rome held one of the texts away from public view for some time. It is possible that they did this knowing the antiquity would call into question the accuracy of the Latin Vulgate... not too much unlike KJVO's desire to suppress evidence for the originals.

 

I agree. That other kind of "faith" biblical "faith". It is a new (false) definition of "faith" that was introduced to most of us in high school by that Kirkawhoosit guy.

1828 - Faith must have evidence.

1994-Faith cannot have evidence!

Oh no! The language changed! We need a new version! How can a 21st century man read the word "faith" in his NIV and be expected to understand the archaic definition of the word?


Love Lacy

 

Lacy, Please re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that faith required evidence, did I? Although the Bible does call it the evidence of things not seen.

I said:

I didn't say that faith WITHOUT facts was superstition but rather faith IN CONTRADICTION to fact is superstition.

Ultimately, everyone of us here puts faith in something that we have no concrete facts to prove (but no one else can factually disprove it either). That is our belief in the existence of God.

Having faith in something that cannot be factually proven nor disproven does not excuse us to ignore the facts when they do prove or disprove something... nor does it authorize us to twist facts and scripture to support a "whim."

 

Askjo,

Since you asked...

No I wouldn't have a problem believing that God could perfectly preserve a text. And Waite is right that we must have faith.

My problem is that (as Waite said) we don't have proof! Yes the Alexandrian manuscripts COULD have been corrupted - but the truth is we don't know!

If we COULD PROVE that the TR and the KJB stem directly from the autographs I'd probably be KJ only too! But we don't have proof!!

If God wants us all to use the KJB only then why did He make it so unobvious?

 

Answer: Because the KJVO camp said so. Sad, but true.

You see, a KJVO can stand and say that the KJV is God's only bible because he believes it in faith, and that is well and good. But if anyone else DARES to say that they believe that God's word can be found in "the multiplicity of manuscripts, texts, and versions in English and any other language" because he believes it in faith, the said individual is tarred and feathered by the KJVO for claiming "faith", not to mention the very faith/belief of that person being called into question.

Answer: Because we have let them do it.

We have been far too lenient with the blather of the KJVO cancer for way too long. KJVOism is false doctrine, a false teaching that is infecting the minds and churches of Christians today.

In more ways that one...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Yes, it has. English has changed a whole lot since 1828, and even more since 1611 (or whenever all the KJV revisions were done).

What meant one thing now means something else. Surely, as a student of the KJV you are well aware of how that works?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Hey Trotter,

Look again at the older and newer definitions of "faith". I hope you still use the older definition. Faith according to a new dictionary requires NO EVIDENCE! That is what the Bible calls presumption. A modern reader would think that God requires "blind faith". God requires no such thing. Again, blind leaping faith is not Biblical faith, it is a satanic invention.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Isaiah 41:21-22
21 Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.
22 Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

But instead of a new translation, we must rescue the word "faith" and let the Bible define itself, instead of subjecting the Word of God to out narrow and often mistaken definitions.

Your Friend, Lacy

 

Lacy Evans asked:

I'm just curious as to what your definition of faith (As far as it affects your trust in the veracity of the Bible you have in your hand) is Brother Ransom.

To have faith means to take someone at his word, to trust that what he says is true.

Problem is, God has never said that the perfect Word exists only in the KJV or the TR or what have you. To accept that "by faith," therefore, is not to take God at his word - worse, it is to ascribe to God what God has not declared. It is faith in a fiction.

If we suppose that God has declared that he will preserve his Word - and I will assume for the argument that this is true, although none of the KJV-only proof-texts I have seen actually hold water - then why should I have any more "faith" in my KJV than my NASB? I regard them both as proof that I can take God at his word. I regard the ersatz "faith" of the KJV crowd as fictitious and unnecessary.