Jesus used a “version” of the Bible

Ok, faith in what? What is the bases that the TR is better than the CT? You said it is faith. Faith in what? What are you placing your faith in that told you that?

 

Speaking strictly for myself, I have faith in God that He did not keep the "best" manuscripts under lock and key for the 1st 1800 years of the church. IMO.

 

I tend to agree.

But if it is truly a manuscript question, as so well stated above, one must also accept the NKJV as a valid translation.

 

Well, faith does not mean a lack of evidence. The scriptures say the creation is evidence to all men that there is a God. So, my faith in the RT is not without some evidence, although the ongoing controversy here demonstrates there is not absolute proof.

I believe that the vast majority of extant texts (over 90%) supports the RT over the CT.

I believe that early writings of church fathers and scriptures in other languages dating back to the earliest centuries after Christ supports the RT.

I believe the source of these texts supports the RT. The RT has the support of faithful, God-fearing people throughout history, the CT has it's support from Egypt and the corrupt Catholic church which persecuted and put to death millions of these faithful believers.

I believe those men who gave their lives during the Reformation to write the scriptures in English and other languages supports the RT. They too were persecuted and killed by the Catholic church.

I believe the history of the church and the gospel after the Reformation supports the RT. The KJB was the primary version used to bring the word of God to all continents and nations, first by the English and later by America.

However, the time of domination by the Catholic church is rightly called the Dark Ages. It was a cruel time of persecution and oppression. Many millions were tortured and burned at the stake for being baptized as the scriptures instruct. Anyone who opposed the Catholic church was put to death.

The two primary sources of the CT are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both full of errors and disagreed with each other over three thousand times in the four gospels alone. They omit approximately 200 verses compared to the RT. Large portions of scripture are missing in the Vaticanus such as Gen 1:1 through Gen 46:28, Psalms 106 through 138, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles and the book of Revelation, and much more besides.

Does that sound like a reliable text to you? Are these simply minor omissions of scripture?

The RT on the other hand has been said to be "of one voice". Yes, there are differences in the over 5000 texts that support it, but they are minor and minuscule compared to the CT, and far fewer than the CT.

These are some of the reasons I believe the RT and the KJB derived from it is the preserved and pure word of God.

 

What if neither is "better"?

 

I could be wrong, but I do believe Amy once mentioned that she uses the NKJV.

 

I think I read once if you were to list all the differences it would take up only about half of a page, and none of those differences bring into question or contradict any doctrine.

 

Then the question is what is the nature of God's promise. Your view of His promise is inconsistent and contradictory. Thats where the problem lies.

You say that people claim the TR and CT are the same.
I say they don't.
You say that is wrong because they claim the TR and CT are both God's preserved word??

That they may hold that both are God's preserved word does not mean that they claim both the TR and CT are the same. What it means is that their view of what constitutes God's preserved word is broader and more inclusive than your view. You make the fallacy of applying your definitions to their statements. Reading their statements within their own context, my statement is perfectly accurate - no one claims that the TR and the CT are the same.

 

While I don't know about the volume the differences represent, I am quite confident that no doctrine has been changed or left out by the changes.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that the TR represents texts that had things added to the original for the sake of clarity. If so, then the TR can be viewed as the amplified God's word - everything present with clarifications added. In some people's minds, this would mean that the TR is not God's word. Yet in my view, such is not the case. In fact, any system of thought which insists that only an exact word for word copy of the original is God's preserved word is going to run into some serious difficulties. Those who use such a rigid definition invariably rely on contradictions and fallacies whenever they claim to have possession of such a thing.

 

It would be helpful if you would explain your comments. Anyone can say "you are inconsistent" and then not explain what is inconsistent.

I see nothing inconsistent about what I believe. I believe the vast majority of extant texts support the RT. Do they all perfectly agree? No. But the differences are very minor, especially compared to the dramatic differences between the CT texts and none affect doctrine.

Study for yourself and you will learn the RT texts are incredibly consistent with each other, and that the CT texts are dramatically different from each other.

 

Paul, though probably possessing actual Hebrew skills as trained by one of Israel's finest teachers, spoke not in Hebrew, but in the dialect of the Hebrews, in other words, Aramaic. Virtually every commentator agrees. Hebrew was not a common spoken language at this time.

Here is one of the places where insistence on a KJV translation has let you down and suggested something that is not precisely translated. The Greek says "hebrais dialektos" = Hebrew dialect, not Hebrew "tongue," which would imply, as you suggested, that the actual language of Hebrew was spoken by Paul.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
"in the Hebrew tongue-the Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of the Palestine Jews since the captivity"

Wesley's Notes:
"In the Hebrew tongue - That dialect of it, which was then commonly spoken at Jerusalem (Aramaic)"

Vincent's Word Studies:
"Lit., dialect: the language spoken by the Palestinian Jews - a mixture of Syriac and Chaldaic"

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
"he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue; which the people he spoke to best understood, and was his own mother tongue; the Alexandrian copy reads, "in his own dialect"; this was not pure Hebrew that was spoke in common in those times, but the Syro-Chaldean language"

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
"He spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue - What was called then the Hebrew, viz. the Chaldaeo-Syriac; very well expressed by the Codex Bezae, τῃ ιδιᾳ διαλεκτῳ, in their own dialect."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
"In the Hebrew tongue - The language which was spoken by the Jews, which was then a mixture of the Chaldee and Syriac, called Syro-Chaldaic. This language he doubtless used on this occasion in preference to the Greek, because it was understood better by the multitude, and would tend to conciliate them if they heard him address them in their own tongue."



About "Jewish notions at that time..." I humbly suggest a study of Jewish culture. They were very Hellenized. Greek or Aramaic were the languages of the day.

 

That would be a good argument for the TR text. Though I wouldn't hold to it, it's not a bad position to take. Thanks for your answer. I'm not against all parts of kjv only nor reasons for it. I'm only against the bad reasons. there are good people with good reasons(such as the one you gave) for being kjvo. I have nothing against that at all.

 

However, for your view to work consistently, 100% agreement would be needed. Otherwise, God did not preserve His pure word, merely His almost pure word. Likewise, if you allow for a 1% difference, why not allow for a 2% difference? Or 3 or 10% difference? Once anything less than 100% accuracy is allowed to be considered God's preserved word, then the differences become a matter of degree and not kind.

This is what I mean by inconsistency. You don't allow for differences in the CT even though they are minor and don't affect doctrine, yet you allow for inconsistency in the TR simply because its not as bad. It is inconsistent to insist on a narrow and exclusive view of God's preserved word when what you consider to be God's preserved word falls short of the standard of perfection itself. You seem to argue that the TR is both God's preserved pure word...yet not quite really pure. Differences in the TR are excused as ok, but inconsistencies in the CT are not. Inconsistent.

 

Again, what if neither the CT or TR should be thought of as "better" than the other? The argument only works if one assumes that differences make one better than the other. But if that is true, then which edition of the TR is better than the other? Which edition of the KJV is better than the other? Which is better, the majority text of the TR? Etc.

 

So then you do look at scientific and scholarly evidence to support your position. Your faith is that god preserved his word(as I have faith in the same). What you based which text over is scientific and scholarly evidence.

This would be that scientific and scholarly evidence. Also, your statement is misleading. Over 90% of extant texts support the CT as well. It's that there are some variants that the CT took the minority reading over the majority. In these instances, then yes, the majority would support the TR over the CT at these variants. But your statement makes it appear as a whole and not specific variants which is really what it is.

I don't agree with the majority view, but it isn't a bad position to have. Just be careful how you word it to others. You don't want to make it say something that is incorrect.

There is support for both here. that's part of what happens in textual criticism. Again, more scientific and scholarly evidence.

Logical fallacy. Guilt by association. Not true. etc... If the Catholic church used the TR would you reject it then? Of course not, so don't use that as your support. The JW's used the KJV for years but that doesn't make the KJV bad. The Mormons still use the KJV, but that doesn't make it bad. Also, Erasmus was a Catholic. Does that make the TR now bad? Of course not, but according to your argument it would.

irrelevant to the discussion

Yes, but that doesn't mean it is the only good version. It also doesn't mean that it's source text is the only one. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition. They also never used forums to talk about subjects, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't today

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Not even close to true. The CT uses all the manuscripts for evidence. yes, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are highly regarded, but can hardly be called the "two primary sources." And yes, thy are missing verses. SO DO ALL MANUSCRIPTS. Remember, manuscripts are not complete Bibles as some kjv only writings want to allude to.

So, are you wanting to say that only complete manuscripts should be used? Well, then we would be left with...nothing.

Very well, just be careful of your generalizations and logical fallacies.

Also, this doesn't add up to...

No, you believe by scientific and scholarly proof that the TR is better than the CT. You believe by faith that God preserved His word.

 

same thing they did before 1611 and the kjv. same thing they did before the 1500's and Erasmus putting together the TR)

 

The statement in bold above pretty much covers it.

 

Well, so much for being consistent...

So...KJVO's can change stuff, if it helps clear things up?

Yet, all other versions, even if they do the same thing, are watering down/perverting the word of God?

Well, now....don't think I'll be able to noodle this one out....

 

That is not my attitude whatsoever. Because God repeatedly promised to preserve his pure word to all generations, I believe that the preserved and pure word of God exists and can be identified.

There are basically two texts that could be the preserved and pure word of God, the CT and the RT. By looking at the two, I believe the RT is that preserved and pure word of God. I can't prove that, but that is what I believe.