Just because the KJV is based on an eclectic text does not mean it is not the Word Of God. It is a much the word of God is as the NLT is for instance.
Do KJVO place the KJV same par as the Greek NT?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Jun 20, 2013.
Page 2 of 6
-
-
The KJV translators did not follow any one of printed editions of the Textus Receptus available to them 100%. Are you suggesting that those varying editions of the Textus Receptus cannot be the preserved word of God in those places where they differed from each other? -
-
HankD -
How do I know that is true? How can you prove this to me? -
HankD -
Tell me this, if these "supposed" preserved original language texts were properly translated into English, would they be the preserved and accurate word of God?
Just asking.... of course I still need proof of those Greek and Hebrew texts you claim are the preserved word of God in the original languages.
And how come nobody else knows about these preserved texts? You are the first person I have EVER seen identify them. -
Bottom line - I don't know about that statistic.
But it is what I believe.
HankD -
Thanks Hank
Again Hank....thanks for being honest! I can respect that.
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Does anyone really believe that the differences between the original Inspired transcripts and the main versions of today make one bit of difference in salvation?
-
I am going to demand proof whenever I disagree with someone from now on. :thumbs: -
Also, I don't judge anyone else for their choice (or so I try not to do so).
And yes, it's true that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His death, burial and resurrection and that most (if not all the popular translations) of the MV's clearly carry that message.
In addition, the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and the acceptance thereof) are essential to the redemption of those who are of accountability.
HankD -
I thought you were stating that in jest.
Well you see, I could just use all the arguments that have been used against me countless times, such as asking where the preserved word of God in the original languages was before these came out?
I wonder if Logos1560 would agree with you??
This is why years ago I realized that NOBODY can prove the answer to this question. Whatever you believe, you must believe it by faith.
My faith in the KJB is based upon the presupposition that God has promised to preserve his word to all generations. I firmly believe there are many scriptures that support this. So for me, my job is to find that preserved text. And I do not believe it is hidden away someplace, I believe God wants all men to know his word, else why reveal it at all?
There are two major texts the Critical Text and the Received Text. Comparing the two, the Received Text and the King James Bible comes out ahead. There is no contest whatsoever between these two texts.
But they cannot BOTH be the word of God, the word of God cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16. So, these folks that say all versions are the word of God are all wet. -
In the NT OT passages are quoted - the same passage is worded differently yet they are both the word of God.
Mark 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Luke 19:46 Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Isaiah 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Who is all wet? Mark, Luke or Isaiah?
HankD -
I do not see what this has to do with preservation of the scriptures, how do you determine which text is the preserved word of God?
Are you trying to say the Critical Text is just the Received Text rephrased by the Holy Spirit?
I'm not buying that one. God said not to add or diminish from his word, the scriptures cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16. This is Mark versus Mark, not Mark versus Luke or John. Completely different scenario altogether. -
ALL of them. Unless you were present when each made, know WHO made each of them, WHERE and WHEN, you cannot prove any of them as being bogus, or any one of them as being the ONLY authentic one.
ALL were preserved by GOD for a reason. -
-
But it is impossible that they BOTH can be the preserved word of God. Scripture cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark 16 (I only pick this passage as it is the most famous difference).
Now you talk about a BOGUS argument, saying the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses is nonsensical and downright dumb. -
Subjective Opinion...
Anyway...you have "faith" in what you believe...and so do we. I'm completely sure that this whole thing won't get sorted out until after we are in the Lord's presence. It does YOU no harm for me to believe I have a perfect Bible in my hand. Conversely, it does me no harm to believe you don't. One of these days in the future you and I will be in total agreement with each other:smilewinkgrin:.
Bro.Greg:saint: -
Doesn't that make him the author then of confusion?
fact 1:
Mark's gospel is without a doubt, the OLDEST gospel of the account of Jesus Christ.
fact 2:
Verses 9-20 account for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.....according to verse 16:9.....Jesus is simply a random dead dude, who NEVER rose from the dead, and thus, his claims towards Divinity are without warrant since that was the standard HE HIMSELF proposed by which to validate the veracity of his claims.
fact 3:
Paul's Epistles make it clear that it is in fact Christ's resurrection from the dead which is the source of our hope....for....if Christ be not risen, (I'm sure I read that somewhere) then neither can we assume his claim to Divinity, nor can we have hope in the future resurrection of the dead unto eternal life.
fact 4:
YOU would submit....that God would INTENT to "preserve" accounts which BOTH confirm and deny the proposition that Christ rose from the dead.....and that makes your position logically contradictory....and renders God the author of some serious mass confusion about the Deity of Jesus Christ and the validity of his claims.
fact 5:
KJVO activists....would submit that it is not possible that God is the author of confusion........but, you have no way of validating that claim since you can't know with any degree of certainty whether any group of manuscripts which submit that idea are either true or false.
Conclusion:
You REALLY have never sat back and relaxed for a few minutes and seriously meditated upon the validity, reasonableness, and logical necessity of your own claims; because, frankly........they are self-contradictory.
This is why I'm not anti-KJVO...........I'm not a dumb, un-informed, slavering, fundamentalist back-woods hick who has never spent a few contemplative moments looking at the evidence objectively.........as I maintain most anti-KJV's are.
Page 2 of 6