How textual critics do it.

Yes, I am; it is obvious that we don't have every communication between God and humans in the 'Bible' (in the standard accepted meaning of 'Bible' on this board). Although, we have every word from God that we need in the scriptures.

Since you insist upon calling the scriptures the "word of God", I challenge you to show me one verse in the New Testament where the term "word of God" clearly refers only to written documents of 1st century origin.

 

Mods, between the vulgarity (capitalized) at the top of this post, the "heretics" slam at the bottom, and the unChristlike stuff in between...I think we have an example of someone that because of his actions & attitudes (NOT viewpoint) has not earned the right to be heard.

Shame on you, Ehud, for showing such little class.

 

Well..

This is true.

Can you tell us which one it was?

If yes, how do you know this?

If no, what good is it to know God only wrote one if you don't know which one?

 

Well, actually and technically, GOD HIMSELF wrote only the Decalogue here on earth. He told or caused men to write the resta what He made into Scripture. He has caused all this to be preserved in various versions in various languages. But the MESSAGES remain the same.

 

Mr. Bell, remember that Ehud is trying to support a doctrine ABOUT Scripture that's NOT FOUND in Scripture. That's kinda like trying to dribble a football. When it doesn't bounce right, they need some sorta excuse to attempt to explain it away. They just cannot see their doctrine is NOT FROM GOD; it's all MAN-MADE. And we know what the ULTIMATE source of man-made doctrines of worship is, don't we?

 

If the Westminster Confession of Faith somehow subliminally supported KJVO, wouldn't that mean they would also accept the Apocrypha (which was part of the KJV in the 1600's), which it specifically refused to accept?

Read what the Confession says about the Apocrypha, and then pick up a 1611 (repro) and see what's sandwiched right between Malachi and Matthew.

Maybe it was called KJVOEFA (King James Version Only Except For Apocrypha) back in the day.

 

Guilt by association doesn't do very well, especially in these forums. People here are smarter than that. Was the TR corrupt because it was compiled by a Catholic? Is the KJV corrupt because it was translated by Anglicans? Or wait, we can do a double whammy- since the KJV was translated by Anglicans and it used a Catholic Greek texts, that must mean it's extra corrupt. Right? Wrong.

Westcott and Hort weren't fundamental Baptists, but neither was James or his translation team, and neither was Erasmus. If guilt by association places dirt on modern versions, you must accept that it can place dirt on the KJV as well. And speaking of Westcott and Hort, I'm convinced people are trying to smear them with allegations of ties to the occult and other nonsense. Most of it is quotes taken out of context. There's a site that is attempting to defend them, I'm not exactly sure where it's at, I'll try to find it later.

But anyway, instead of jumping to guilt by association, you should try to discredit modern versions using logical reasoning and facts. I would really like to hear something logical, not involving conspiracy theories, half-truths, and misrepresentation that proves these modern versions 'corrupt'.

 

Rippon, you are correct in what you said. I note that I did not proof-read and correct any misleading statements in my post, as I was tired when composing it. That is entirely my fault.

I did not say what I intended, by leaving out a couple of words. What I was intending to get across, is that the Second London confession was MORE of a Church of England confession, than was the First London Confession, which was entirely done by seven local Baptist congregations in the London area, apart from any other influence. (Note the difference in leaving out only one or two words.)

Not so, the Second London Confession. (I do confess to knowing nothing of the Savoy confession, FTR.) But the Second London Confession is specifically and intentionally modeled after the Westminster Confession, which, although claimed by those of Reformed persuasion, is not of any such group, at all, but is the child of (mostly) 'Calvinistic' and/or 'Particular' thinking members of the Westminster Assembly of the Church of England, hence my assertion.

From what I'm able to ascertain, there were no 'Baptists', per se, in this Assembly, or at least none willing to so state, in opposing 'paedo-baptism'. There were some independents, Congregationalists, etc., some 'Erastians', some of other persuasions, but the majority were an admixture of 'Puritan'/presbyterian/Church of England. This Westminster Confession is hardly Baptistic, by any stretch.

The Second London Confession does a little better, in this regard. But it, too, is hardly what I would call exclusively Baptist, although it supports many doctrines generally accepted by Particular Baptists.

In short, the First London Confession, the second London Confession, and the Westminster Confession all are purveyors of the views that, in many cases, are consistent with some views of those who would style themselves as 'Calvinists', 'Particular Baptists', etc., by way of identification.

However, the Westminster Confession is not 'Baptist', by any stretch (nor is it 'Baptistic', at all).
The Second London Confession, is fairly well, 'Baptist', but not exclusively so, as well as being only moderately 'Baptistic', as it attempts to strike much acceptable ground with other Orthodox Chrtistians. And the "Puritan" influence is strong, here, as well.
By contrast, The First London Confession is virtually entirely 'Baptist', even to the point of contrasting 'Anabaptists', while being entirely 'Baptistic'. I might say that it is 'Particular'-ly Baptist!

That was the point I was attempting to get across. Obviously, I did not do a very good job, in my attempt. Hopefully, I have done better, as I am not so tired, at this moment.

Ed

 

Re: How certain posters do it!

I just caught this. Thanks, Ehud! :thumbs:

Lemme' help you out, just a bit. But I'm gonna' help you out concerning a time over 15 centuries prior to 1611.

Obviously, you are unconcerned about the OT, for that never seems to come up in any of the conversations, so I'm not sure how exactly you explain away the fact that Jesus read from a Scroll of Isaiah that does not seem to correspond exactly with either the Masoretic text or the LXX, from what I'm able to ascertain, and as far as I know not the DSS, either, but why quibble over annoying facts like Scripture's own words?

(FTR, I checked this out in some edition of the KJV, as well, and found both the NKJV and KJV closer to each other in both the OT and NT than they are, OT to NT, in either version.) Do you happen to notice any major differences there, as well as some not hardly so obvious? I embolded them just 'cause I get so helpful, when I'm needing sleep.

1.) Didn't Jesus leave out "God", here (actually Lord or 'Adonai')?

2,) How about the next phrase where he left out LORD (YHWH) and replaced it with "He"?

3.) What about four clauses later when Jesus added a whole phrase that is not found in Isaiah 61:1? Is that important, maybe?

4.) Or the next phrase when "Dynamic Equivalence" is employed by Jesus, rewording the entire thought?

Sure seems like even the Lord Jesus Christ was 'monkeying around' a lot with the words of Scripture, here, wouldn't you say?

No, wait! That couldn't have been it, for 'The Bible' says Jesus "read" from the scroll of Isaiah. Hmmm! (Since you acknowledge only one "pure text", this obviously could not have been the one.) Maybe Jesus was reading from a corrupted text, and didn't know it, ya' think? One that somehow was mysteriously and magically sent back over three centuries from Alexandria, before it could have even possibly been written by that gang of 'Bible corrupting heretics', whom you have self-righteously appointed yourself to ride herd on?

Or could it be that just maybe there is/was more than one valid version of Isaiah, that is God's preserved word, as I believe robycop3 has suggested in the past?

(I really don't expect a response, since you seldom acknowledge very many of my posts, for the most part, but still though I would ask, anyway.)

So I guess we gotta' stick to the NT. Oh, wait! That IS the NT!

Ed

 

Well, then what will??

 

Re: Boring

So many questions/comments/ insinuations; so little time. (Your statements in this response, are here emboldened, for contrast to my responses.)

"Let's try this again."

I have, more than once, before. I have brought things to your attention, even to and including miscopying (as had another) and seen the same error repeated, no less, without seeing so much as an acknowledgement from you, that an error was made - Case in point - the misidentification of the name of Dr. Edward F. Hills, in this thread. Your 'supposed "cut and paste"' is included in this that I am "cut and pasting" from your original post, in this thread. FTR, only you, unlike every other poster in this thread who has touched on this, have yet to correctly identify Dr. Edward Freer Hills, the one whom you claim to agree with, and emulate, yet are so unconcerned, as to even identify him correctly. I should not be surprised, at this I guess, for you seem to enjoy indentifying me as "Eddie", which is not the way I have ever identified myself on the Baptist Board, and I have before requested that it be either "Ed" or "EdSutton", as that I show I identify myself, here on the Baptist Board, in my posts. :type: Frankly, you do not know me well enough to call me "Eddie", unlike, perhaps, some other BB members, who do know me personally. Again, FTR, that is why I try and identify every member of the BB by their on-Board 'handle', as a rule. But I apologize for having digressed.

Here is what you have said. (Note, you are the one speaking about someone being "unscholarly", here. This not so highly educated, not a pastor, non-scholarly farmer will embolden the mis-identification, since you have never seemed to see it, Ehud, or should I now refer to you as "DR. Ehud"?)

The actual quote from the Web Site that you apparently chopped and glued, 'er I mean "cut and pasted" this from says this - "Edward F. Hills (1912-1981) was a respected Presbyterian scholar."

I am not necesarily sure about who is or is not respected in this, but I have previously noted that I happen to have two books by Dr. Edward F. Hills, while you apparently do not even know how the gentleman identified himself.

"I said nothing about before 1611."

That may be technically true, at least in this thread. However you did say, these two things in this thread (actually, about the only questions you actually asked), and I again quote, " What happened to the cannon of Scripture? The church has already decided where God's word is." And " From 1611- 1901 where was God's preserved word? TheTrue Church knows". Since both questions are apparently already answered, in advance by you, they are therefore "rhetorical questions", hence I did not directly answer them, for I saw no need to do so. BTW, "the 'cannon' of Scripture" has apparently blown away a couple of your arguments, as I recently posted with Jesus' own reading from an Isaiah scroll. That is found in "the 'canon' of Scripture", FTR.

"If you are going to copy a quote answer it. Do not copy it and the start a new topic. Is this modern day progressive scholarship? SO much for Logical thinking."

I do acknowledge that I did 'call your hand' where you made misleading statements about the Second London Confession of Faith. (And you have now repeated that, as well.) Is it permissible, in your own "logical thinking", to note a factual error, and/or misleading information? Does your attempted identification of the KJV as "the Word of God" in the Westminster and Second London Confessions of Faith count, where neither so much as mentions any version? Did the Geneva Bible happen to cease to be the written Word of God, any longer, after 1611? Or had it ever even been 'the word of God' in your estimation, or only a 'pretender" to that appelation? Is that fair question? BTW, I have now asked more questions in this one post, than you have asked in the entire thread, again FTR. (I'd repeat the 'rolleyes 'smilie'', but cannot have more than four 'smilies' in a post, else it will not 'take' and I may yet desire to use some more.)
Let's see. I have started no new topics. I do not know much about "modern day progressive scholarship" as I am a 59 year old farmer, not a scholar, at all, have never been known as one, nor do I make any such claim. (BTW, that is only the third question you have asked in this entire thread, and you answered the other two, yourself.) However I am probably not educated enough to really understand all the insinuations implied in the above four sentences so will not comment furter as I don't want to further embarass you, as I don't want to further bore you, here.

Apparently, facts or other poster's questions do not do a whole lot to stimulate your thinking either, the way many of them seem to be ignored this thread. However, I shall try and make an effort to be more entertaining and enlightening in the future.

BTW, thanks readmore, for the unexpected support in your posts.

Ed

 

What I find interesting is that one would spend so much time arguing versions....and then display behavior and speech that is condemned by the very version he defends.

I'm more likely to listen to an MV "supporter" that obeys it than a KJV "supporter" that doesn't.

 

If you're talking about Ehud's "ASSume" remark--the KJV is one of the few versions that doesn't condemn this type of speech. Which, honestly, does make for some awkward moments in the congregation when the pastor reads from 2 Peter 2:16, for example, and there are visitors present.

I should hope my support for someone who has clearly invested a great deal of time and research into the Bible version subject would be anything but unexpected!

 

Ehud, I agree with you concerning W&H's step in the logic of unbelief. That is a big problem.

 

According to The Rice Reference KJV, let it quoted:

This Rice Reference Bible’s quotation is right. That is odd.

Keep in mind that John R. Rice stood on the Modern Version side. According to his statement, he denied any doctrines were affected by modern versions. (See Defending the King James Bible, page 134.)

According to David Cloud, Bruce Metzger questioned the authorship of the books such as Genesis and denied the Bible’s history and miracle. David declares Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever, apostate and a heretic. See http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ubstrans.htm

Go back to the beginning of Adam and Eve‘s lifetime, the Satan used the Word of God, NOT Satan’s word and twisted God’s Word. After Adam and Eve became sinners, the Satan won over the Word of God.

God used Moses for His purpose. Moses wrote saying, “not add the Words of God or remove them”. (Deut. 4:2) The Rice Reference Bible has the cross reference on this verse. Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs saying that anyone will be found a liar if he adds any words on the Word of God. (Prov. 30:5-6) So is another warning from author John the Apostle (Rev 22:18).

Jeremiah’s writing, the Scripture was read and cut off by King Jehoiahkim and was cast in the fire. We read the story about this King and Jeremiah concerning the Scripture in the Old Testament.

This story is very obvious to show the evidence. According to Consistently Christian scholars, they said some Gnostics in early church time around 200 – 300 AD mutilated the Scriptures.

Westcott and Hort produced a “new” Greek text against the Textus Receptus where the KJV was translated. They favored 2 famous manuscripts, Aleph and B. They produced their new bible, ERV. After this, modern versions are added, added, added and still continue thereafter. We have 4 corrupted Greek texts gone back to 1881. According to Dr. Jack Moorman he examined the comparison between the Greek texts and found 8,000 differences.

Everrett Fowler listed many verses where the names of Jesus Christ were removed in modern versions and corrupted Greek texts 200 times. Why were Jesus’ names mutilated in modern versions following to manuscripts of Alexandrian family? The KJV has 200 names of Jesus Christ following to manuscripts of Antiochian family.

The Bible was cut off in public schools. To use Jesus’ name in the prayer was cut off in the State government. The 10 Commandments was cut off by the authority in the south where the Judge was removed. We see modern versions cut off Jesus’ names, fasting, hell, blood, and any doctrines of the Bible.

The question:

Do they follow Jehoiahkim’s step?

 

I just wanted to mention some old facts which I have pointed out in some older threads ( others have done the same ) . The Geneva Bible continued to be printed until the 1640's . There were 60 editions of the G.B. after 1611 . Many of the men of the Westminster Assembly favored the G.B. Its notes were decidedly Calvinistic . (William Tyndale's notes were also.)

In the Preface to the Reader written by Dr. Miles Smith , Bible quotations were exclusively from the Geneva Bible . And of course the Geneva Bible is just as much the Word of God -- Holy Scripture , as the multiple versions of the so-called KJV .