Final Authority before 1611?

Michelle said "Because God already provided His words for us accurately in our own language, and have NO NEED FOR THE GREEK/HEBREW ANYMORE."

Why did the KJV translators go to the Hebrew and Greek, if God already provided his word for them accurately in their own language?

 

--------------------------------------------------
Why did the KJV translators go to the Hebrew and Greek, if God already provided his word for them accurately in their own language?
--------------------------------------------------


I have already answered this. Go search it out. I am tired of repeating myself, to benefit your little games.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle, I ask because the answers you have already given, which I have read, seem contradictory to the statements I am asking about. I am only seeking clarification.

 

We note that Michelle will not
accept correction in regards to the
normal defintion of "circular logic".
What she doesn't know about logic would
fill a book.

What she doesn't know has also filled the
KJV1769:
Proverbs 15:10 (KJV1769):
Correction is grievous unto him that
forsaketh the way: and he that
hateth reproof shall die.

I'll try some more reproof.
"Circular Logic" can be True.
The problem with circular logic is that
you cannot determine from the logic
alone if it is true or not.

Here is an example of Circular logic.
The KJB is God's word.
God's word is the KJB.

Note that this circular logic is perfectly
true. Circular logic can be true.
Circular logic is always wrong because
the only way to tell if it is true or false
is outside the listed logic.
Circular logic is useless.

 

Sound familiar?

Agreed.

 

In the account of Philip and “a man of Ethiopia”

Acts 8
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this,

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

Isaiah 53
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

Among the other differences Luke does not include “He was taken from prison” yet he says The place of the scripture which he read was this
Now if God re-inspired the AV1611 and all the words of God are pure words why were these words left out?

Could it be that the Ethiopian, being from Ethiopia (Africa) had a dreaded (dare I say it) ALEXANDRIAN BIBLE (EEK!) which Luke called “the Scripture”.

After all the KJVO, KJVO look-alikes and wanabees keep telling us how they (dreaded Alexandrians) delete words and phrases from the Scripture.

HankD

 

LIE....

It is a known FACT(look @ Church history)that the "oldest & best" and their fruit have been rejected now LONG before your pet answer..Look @ any OLD Scofield Bible for instance,Ol' Doc Scofield rejected the Alexandrian/Laodecian washouts back before 1930....Give that marlarkey a rest.

LIE...

Acts 11 & 13 give reference to the word of God coming from Antioch,Syria(the MSS. behind the word of God down through the centuries)---And while we are on the Scripture thingy,list the verses that show God's word coming from Egypt..

Neither are the four Gospels,but they all have the same account..Big whoop!!!

Jesus added to Scripture,evedent in comparing Matt 5:32 and Matt 19 to Dueternomy 24...However,I cannot help if some Alexandrian scribe altered Isaiah to read as Luke in the POST Christian LXX;and you and others fell for it.


Well,anyway,I think that is enough de-bunking..What about that there Scriptural proof for Alexandria??????

THIS AINT GONNA SIMPLY VANISH!!!!!!!!!

 

AA what are you saying here? that one of the KJV readings is alexandrian?

Explain the difference in the Acts account vs the Isaiah account of the Isaiah 53 passage. Forget the LXX.

Just for the record AA, your an OK guy in my book, FWIW.

HankD

 

AA said "LIE.... It is a known FACT(look @ Church history)that the "oldest & best" and their fruit have been rejected now LONG before your pet answer"

Some before the 1930s rejected the Alexandrian manuscripts, yes. But we're not talking about the origin of opposition to the Alexandrian manuscripts, we're talking about the origin of the teaching that the KJV is exclusively inerrant and anything different from it is corruption.

AA said "LIE.... Acts 11 & 13 give reference to the word of God coming from Antioch,Syria"

Which does nothing to prove that the KJV is the exclusive inerrant translation of those manuscripts.

AA said "Neither are the four Gospels,but they all have the same account..Big whoop!!!"

It is a big whoop. Things that are different CAN be the same, can be God's word despite their differences.

AA said "Jesus added to Scripture,evedent in comparing Matt 5:32 and Matt 19 to Dueternomy 24..."

Jesus didn't add to scripture. He read scripture (which by definition is the word of God in written form). If he added to it or changed it, it would be the word of God but it wouldn't have been scripture at that time, for it wasn't written down.

 

LIE....

It is a known FACT(look @ Church history)that the "oldest & best" and their fruit have been rejected now LONG before your pet answer..Look @ any OLD Scofield Bible for instance,Ol' Doc Scofield rejected the Alexandrian/Laodecian washouts back before 1930....Give that marlarkey a rest.

LIE...

Acts 11 & 13 give reference to the word of God coming from Antioch,Syria(the MSS. behind the word of God down through the centuries)---And while we are on the Scripture thingy,list the verses that show God's word coming from Egypt..

Neither are the four Gospels,but they all have the same account..Big whoop!!!

Jesus added to Scripture,evedent in comparing Matt 5:32 and Matt 19 to Dueternomy 24...However,I cannot help if some Alexandrian scribe altered Isaiah to read as Luke in the POST Christian LXX;and you and others fell for it.


Well,anyway,I think that is enough de-bunking..What about that there Scriptural proof for Alexandria??????

THIS AINT GONNA SIMPLY VANISH!!!!!!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]It is simply NOT TRUE that Scofield rejected the MSS known as B and Aleph. He still chose to use the KJV, because in 1917 it was still the popular version. Dr Scofield was not KJVO, nor would he be today, if he were still alive, in fact, in his margins of the 1917 edition, which I have several copies, he gives the alt rendering as found in the E.R.V., which you-know-who (W/H) had a hand in. ;)

 

The Scripture I quoted(Matt & Deut) are CLEAR indications that Jesus ADDED to Scripture,just like the Jeremiah 36 account..As far as the LXX,2-days "bibles" have their roots in the POST-Christian LXXs(Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

Danke gleichfalls!

 

Gee, this thread jumped 13 pages in one day? Why?...oh, never mind, I see Michelle has been busy yet again.

Hey, moderators! Why don't we just set up a forum just for Michelle. That way, everyone else can actually focus on the topic of discussion. We could call it "Theology by Michelle" or "Michelle's Warped World" or something along those lines. Just make it password protected, and don't give out the password.

See? Nice and neat...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Michele you are mistaken. The correct translation from the original TR Greek manuscripts is "strain out". It's a commonly known error in the KJV bible and you fail to realize it because you are blind to the facts. Do a little reseach before you show your ignorance on the topic. Every other bible in existance translate this correctly, including those who use the TR as thier base.

 

Circular refers to the sort logical argument you are using. A circular argument is an invalid argument. It's a fallacy.

It doesn't meant that your premises or even you conclusion are not true, it just means that your argument (the way you arrived at your conclusion) is invalid. You can't (or shouldn't) use it to prove your conclusion.

Let me rework the argument you gave, to make it absolutely logically valid.

Okay, in order for your argument to be airtight, this is going to have to be changed to this:

The KJV is the only word of God.

This'll have to become

Modern versions are not the KJV

Yep, as long as the first two statements are true (and I assume you believe them so) then that conclusion is valid. The argument is airtight as long as the premises are true

Premise #2 gives no problems. I assume everyone here would agree with that.

The problem is with premise #1. What argument do you give for it? How do you know it true?

If you say, because I know it's true", that's a circular argument. Its basically saying, the KJV is the only word of God because the KJV is the only word of God.

If you say, "because the Holy Spirit told me", then you are using very subjective proof, and proof that can't be known by anyone but you. (This is where the gnostic charge comes in. This seems awfully close to claiming "special knowledge" as proof of truth.)

If you say, "because God's word tells me it's so", then you are going to have to come up with the statements from scripture that support the KJV being the only word of God. If you can, then you've got good objective proof that your starting premise is a true one, and I'd bet that no one here would argue with you then.

So if you want to make a valid argument, that's where your going to have to concentrate your effort. Finding scriptural proof that the KJV is the only word of God.

All the other stuff doesn't help you at all, because it doesn't help you make a VALID argument. </font>[/QUOTE]Bravo Russell! A very good explanation and rebuke.

 

Now I know you are delusional. To discard the original Greek and Hebrew texts is absolute HERESY.

 

Since I'm a Baptist (aren't we all?), I'm not gonna dance the two-step around the issue, nor will I change partners midstream. I asked some very specific questions:

"So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?

Michelle's answer (in part) stated: "Because God already provided His words for us accurately in our own language, and have NO NEED FOR THE GREEK/HEBREW ANYMORE. You couldn't realistically and truthfully tell me why the existing manuscripts differ, any better than I could, because they would be based upon our own presumptions of why."

Actually I can easily explain most of the reasons why existing manuscripts differ, illustrated by any handwritten document from antiquity as well as by my own errors when writing in longhand or even when typing (but thanks to the Bill Gates-provided Word spellchecker, many of the errors to which I as a fallible human am prone do get eliminated). But that's not the issue.

You now say we "have no need for the Greek/Hebrew anymore" (I wonder how far that will fly when Bible college and seminary students try that one out on their professors?).

But Michelle, it was _you_ who originally said:

Michelle: “scripture = created by and given by God; preserved accurately in copies and in use/living throughout history and within the churches without error.”

Are those "preserved accurately ... copies" the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? I know they weren't English manuscripts.....But in fact you also made it clear elsewhere:

Michelle: “I believe by faith that they do and have had and will be based upon the same greek and Hebrew texts, that our KJB is based upon.

So those manuscripts indeed _are_ Greek and Hebrew, correct? This then goes back to the original claim made by you regarding what "accurate" means:

Michelle: "I did not say reasonably accurate, I said accurate" as defined by Webster, "accurate: 1. careful and exact 2. free from errors; precise"

And back to my response and question once more (sorry to repeat myself in the same message, but I apparently need to draw the lines quite precisely):

"So, Michelle, why don’t any two Greek manuscript copies agree, if they are supposedly all “accurate”, “careful and exact”, “free from errors” and “precise”? And if they are _not_ all “accurate” in the sense of being totally “free from errors” and “precise,” then why can they not be accepted as they really exist, and be recognized as “reasonably accurate” or even “highly accurate” as the existing evidence was summarized in the wording of Key Fallacy #2?

There is still more:

Michelle: "You presume that man has made errors, without knowledge that it was always that way."

Dear Michelle, I "presume" nothing. I can look at _any_ existing Greek NT manuscript and see that it does not agree 100% with any other Greek manuscript. From this I draw an inductive conclusion that, in some manner, in numerous locations, and over a 1500 year stretch of time, various errors came into being during the copying and reproduction of Greek NT manuscripts.

I certainly don't believe that the Greek text as originally given by inspiration of God had these same errors in them, knowing what God has revealed about his character and his manner of using specially called men who were borne along by the Holy Spirit to record his word "accurately" (in the sense you defined).

Yet since no two Greek manuscipts are identical, I therefore must conclude that _every_ existing Greek manuscript was therefore affected in some manner by the humans who copied them. No single Greek manuscript then can be 100% "accurate" according to your specific definition, i.e. "free from errors" of various and sundry kind. This is not a presumption, but a simple factual observation.

Michelle: "I presume by faith, that the faithful have always had it error free."

Please tell me then: which _one_ Greek manuscript is then that perfect, 100% accurate, and error-free copy that the Greek-speaking believers "have always had"? And this leads back to the previous questions regarding those poor Egyptian Christians who for nearly 1800 years have had only an Alexandrian-based translation in their own language, or the modern Jaspanese, who even today still suffer by possessing only an Alexandrian-based translation. How can a "faith" presumption be valid when all existing evidence speaks against such and suggests that God's providence in manuscript presevation functioned in some other manner?

Michelle: "You are talking about 2000 years of scattered and copied manuscripts, of foriegn languages, and bothering about them in the direct face of God Almighty who already provided them for you in your language."

No, I am talking about how _any_ translators of the English Bible were able to translate "the" Greek and Hebrew texts as originally given by inspiration of God from the preserved material available to them. Since the evidence shows that God in his providence _permitted_ a less-than-100% perfect transmission to affect _all_ Greek NT manuscripts, some refinement of the "faith presumption" needs to be made.

The translators of _any_ version, at any point, had to use the materials available to them, and of these materials, no two manuscript sources or even printed editions agreed 100%. Even the various TR editions differ among themselves around 200+ times, so there was not even an agreed-upon "standard" from which to translate (which explains some of the KJV renderings that have little or no Greek manuscript support).

Michelle: "This is nothing but a mockery of God and what He has done, to suit man's ego and vain pride of their own wisdom and at the expense of the faith of the naive, and unlearned, and all because of the desire to condone the altered versions."

On the contrary, I believe very strongly that "God is not mocked". I equally believe that God's providence has allowed and controlled the human transmission of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I also believe that he has preserved the text of his original revelation within these manuscripts in an _extremely_ accurate manner. I believe equally that God throughout human history raises up, trains, and equips various human translators to render his word into various human languages on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek texts and manuscripts that have been preserved.

So how such a belief has anything to do with "man's ego", "vain pride", or in any way damages "the faith of the naive, and unlearned" remains a mystery to me. As for "condoning the altered versions", I was the one who brought up in another thread the issue of the clear historical error in the ESV in Mt 1:7,10; so I don't exactly support any and every rendering found in those "altered versions".

Michelle: "Just remember one thing, Westcott and Hort thought the TR was vile. This was what the KJB was translated from, and all previous Bibles, and they did not like it. This was the beginning of all the modern versions and their alterations from the true word of God."

That Hort had written such at age 23 is a matter of record; Westcott never wrote anything of the sort, nor did he state concurrence with Hort on that issue. But W-H are hardly "the beginning of all the modern versions and their alterations". Long before Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf (a conservative German Lutheran) and Tregelles (of the conservative British Plymouth Brethren) had published their basically Alexandrian-text editions. Neither Tischendorf nor Tregelles was "liberal", "apostate", "unsaved" or any of the typical anti-WH claims that get bandied about; nor were they strong vocal opponents of the TR, even though favoring an Alexandrian type of text.

But let me return to what I stated previously, since I stand by that without apology:

"A highly accurate translation made from highly accurate manuscripts by highly skilled human translators causes me no major problem whatsoever, and I can rely upon and trust the scriptural text thereby provided to my hand according to various translations, whether in matters of theology, history, geography, or anything else that is clearly taught within the word of God. In declaring such, I do not deny or reject divine providence; rather, I recognize and accept that providence functioning in the continued preservation of the original texts by means of fallible humans, as well as the same providence functioning in providing accurate translations of those original texts by means of other fallible humans. I praise the Lord for what he has done to preserve his written word to all generations!"

Michelle: "We truly are living in perilous times."

Amen. (But probably not in the way you think).

 

Ziggy,

Amen and Amen!

Very weel reasoned and extremely well done.

Bravo!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I thought the LXX was an Old Testament translation into Greek.
I thought the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were
specific New Testament sources.
If I am correct you just said
many Modern Versions have their roots
in an after Christ version of the Old Testament
which is the two specific versions of
the New Testament.

Recommend your rebabble your statement.

After comparing the received texts and the
critical texts the NKJV forward says:
"In light of these facts, and also because
the New King James Versions is the fith
revision of a historic document translated from
specific Greek texts,
the editors decided to retain
the traditional text in the body of the
New Testament and to indicate
major Critical and Majority Text
variant readings in the footnotes.[/b]"

Yet, some KJVOs condemn the nKJV for this.
I see a major DOUBLE STANDARD that says
the footnoes are not scripture in the KJV
but are scripture in the nKJV. The nKJV is
condemned for what is in it's footnotes.