Deconflicting the Bible

Brother Ed,

I believe that God is real so is his Son and the Holy Spirit. I further believe them to be one God (mono theos).

I believe the Word of God to be without fault, blemmish or error. So your question in my view is who wrote Gods word most accurately, without any personal interjection. My answer is I really don't know. That is truly a tall order for any man and there is only one who truly knows and he is in heaven.

When man finds what he calls an error, was the error the fault of the one who inspired or the one who received the inspiration? Or is the error a misunderstanding of the reader?

Here is one for example often discussed;

Lk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Mk 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

In the above, Luke seems to imply that all there saw the heavens opened yet Matthew and Mark appears to say only Jesus saw this. Also, which did the spirit actually say, "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" or "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

So the question begins with were these differences in these Men's original writings, in their human account of the same event, in some translating of the original writings, what accounts for these differences?

 

I had to look up the word but I guess I agree with you. Thanks for adding to my vocabulary. Soon I will have enough words to make a complete sentence! :wavey:

 

The disagreements are not from God, He is not the author of confusion. Even among the various revisions/editions of the same Bible (such as the KJV1611-1769)there are the so called "disagreements".

The disagreements have to do with one or more reasons all with their root in the disagreements of men as to the meaning of a word in the original language or a question as to whether a scribal error has occurred in the mss.

As to which one is the most accurate, well one could consider the advice of the KJV translators themselves:

HankD

 

Hank;
You and I have had many civil discussions in the past on many topics. I hope this will not wreck our track record, but I must point out that the quote you have provided from the translators does not support your position. At least I don't believe it does for; 1. The Translators are not voicing their own opinion ; 2. The 'variety of translations' quote is actually from Augustine, who is not to be trusted by any knowledgable Baptist primarily because most of his junk is heretical, (i.e. City of God), and finally 3. I believe the context of the words 'variety of translations' from Augustine are not germaine to your position because he is not suggesting that one should have 200 Greek or Latin Translations (as were the two most common textual languages of his day) but instead he is suggesting that using multiple different language translations is helpful and therefore cannot be compared to our cacaphony of English Translations all vying for the pre-eminence.
Hence, when you and others try to use the Translators' notes to the Reader as ammunition in your vain attempt at de-bunking the KJVo doctrine, the least you could do is use something which has a little more gunpowder to it instead of this wet blanket and ineffectual quote.

 

Dear av1611jim,

You are correct that Augustine did make that statement earlier and that much of Augustine's theology has been shown to be wrong. It is also true that Augustine would have had several Greek and Latin versions available to him. However, I find no validity in your three assertions:

1. I disagree that the AV men were not expressing their own opinion. The AV translators would not have put this statement in to their Preface if they did not believe it themselves. I don't have my 1611 KJV with me as I write this, but I don't think that there are quotation marks around this statement, nor credit given to Augustine. But even if it is Augustine being exactly quoted, the purpose is to lend authority to a point being made (either positive or negative one). Its clear from the context that this is not a quote against multiple versions, so it must have been used by the AV men in support of their opinion that multiple versions is a good thing. The Preface does not exist to repeat other's opinions, but of the translators.

2. Truth is truth, no matter what the reputation of the person that spoke it. The true things you wrote remain true, even when I disagree with your conclusions. Many profound truths have be spoken by the unskilled and even vile sinners. There are many recorded in our Bible! Christians are not the only people that recognize God's truth (its that some won't accept the truth).

3. If Augustine meant that having multiple languages of the Bible is helpful, clearly it is only helpful if the individual is multilingual. But if the reader is not multilingual then variations in his/her mother tongue might also be helpful. No one has suggested having 200 versions per person. It seems your concern is over which version will receive the pre-eminence.

To borrow a quote, I believe you could do something which has a little more gunpowder to it instead of your wet blanket and ineffectual argument.

 

I believe I specifically addressed Hank D but your reply is noted.

 

I'll try again.

 

OK Ill try to answer Jim again...

Not at all Jim.

 

Jim, I'll give my answer in parts. I've tried to answer put I get locked out with the complete answer.


However IMO the goodly men of the KJV translation comittee probably meant the English in the venacular of their day just as Augustine did of his day.

In fact they drew heavily from other English translations such as the Bishop's Bible and the Rheims NT which ultimately became the official English Bible of the Church of Rome:the Douay-Rheims.
I believe now its called the Confraternity Version.

HankD

 

The RC Rheims NT was published in 1582. compare the KJ 1611 and you will find about an 80-90% word-for-word sameness. Many verses of the AV1611 NT are identical with the Rheims NT.

Remember, in 1611 the Church of England was itself still enamoured with Rome (though King Henry 8th had already officially declared severance with "Il Papa").

They called themselves the AngloCatholic Church and high Anglican priests were still celebrating mass at the time of the KJV publication!

HankD

 

Some high Anglicans still call the celebration of the Eucharist "the mass" to this very day.

Also remember, that they were so fixated upon Rome that in 1611 they included the Apocrypha along with the two Testaments.

Several years ago I found some historic data and showed it here on the BB that in 1611 there were at least 121 English translations (some partial) of the Bible so they were certainly aware of other English translations and (IMO) meant for the reader to do some comparison of their own. Of course, only the very rich were able to do this.

All this to me shows the rich history of the KJV which led up to its publication. The Bible which we all love and cherish, the KJV.


Your friend and brother
HankD

 

I see no doctrinal conflict, except perhaps in saving "to the uttermost" versus merely "saving," but if Christ's salvation isn't "to the uttermost", it is not salvation at all, and so simply saying that Christ is able to save is sufficient, and there is, therefore, no conflict between those versions.

Michael