KJV and the modern versions

They follow the same texts as the NKJV does... are you against the NKJV?

But AA is saying that if something is different it cannot be the same...
But will not take a stand on a single KJV edition. Although there are changes....

And how can a text not be used before? Just because it wasn't used in the KJV doesn't mean it was a bad copy or bad text... Unless you believe in reverse inspiration...

Aren't we supposed to be Christlike?
Of course...

Then why use the Masoretic text.. when Christ didn't?
It is clear, when compared with the Masoretic text, and Jesus' quotes in the NT that he didn't use it...

Now, along comes the KJVOs that say we must use a text that Christ didn't...

Sounds like a bunch of serpents in the Garden, trying to say "here, use something Jesus didn't... it is better"....

 

HP Your comparison hear is nothing more than a thinly veiled personal attack. Why did you have to add that to your post? What merit to your argument did it contribute to? When you start comparing ones beliefs to that of evil serpents, I would consider that on the same level as questioning ones salvation, unless those serpents you are referring to were saved ones in your estimation.

 

No, I am not questioning anyone's salvation... I am saying that Satan has successfully indoctrinated his doubt of God's word into God's kingdom... so much so that even well meaning Christians, (as I am sure you are) are being deceived into beleiving that other versions of the Bible are from Satan and not God.

Man is not the enemy.
Christians that use the KJV are not the enemy
Christians that use other MVs are not the enemy

Satan is our enemy...

And when we fight a fight that has no biblical foundation, Satan is taking our priorities off what they need to be on.

Sorry if it sounded like that.

 

the wrongheaded invective of "questionable and discarded texts" aside, maybe we're just appealing to the old KJVO mantra:

Things that are different are not the same.

If the KJV is the only God-preserved translation, then there would have been no need for anything beyond 1611. Because...things that are different are not the same.

 

This would seem to be your position, concerning your own beliefs, anyway. How consistently you apply those to others is open to debate, I would say. Continuing:

Not true, but what is a little falsehood among friends, I guess? The Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) is not, nor has it ever been the "property of the Vatican" and in fact, is in absentia, still totally claimed today as 'the property' of St. Catherine's Monastary, while >4/5 of it is the de facto property of the British Library; ~1/9 is the property of the Universitat Leipzig, with the remainder mostly still at St. Catherine's, with three partial leaves located at the National Library of Russia, in St. Petersburg.

Again, not true. There is apparently a very close resemblance, granted, to the DSS and the Massoretic text(s) we have available, but they are not "word for word" identical. One misspelled word alone, makes this claim vanish into thin air. And as the late, great Dean John Burgon worded it, both aptly and succinctly, " 'Very nearly — not quite:' " (My emphasis)

The text similar to the known Massoretic text, just as was the LXX, were both likely availabe to Jesus and the Apostles. However, this claim is "begging the question," in order to avoid answering one that has been asked before, by more than one poster, including myself. I'll ask it again. This happens in Luke 4, in the synagogue where Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah. Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah (Lk. 4:16), and proclaimed it to be Scripture (Lk. 4:21). The words he read do not exactly correspond with any known text of that passage, be it Hebrew, Greek, or any other text in any language, even given translating, that we have any knowledge of, at this time.

Your comments here seem similar to those I found of another who basically advocates the same position as you seem to. I will quote his words, here, as they seem appropriate, somehow.

Dr. Waite "just don't wanna MOVE, see"; antiaging will "believe whatever I like";

"My mind's made up! Don't disturb me with the facts!"

Sorry, but I do not, and will not accept that motto, from anyone, because Scripture does not! (Rom. 12:1-2)

Ed

 

Is the Bible a spiritual book, Divinely inspired by God? Is it today, in the form(s) we now have it in, divinely inspired by God? Can whole passages be Divinely inspired and not divinely inspired at one and the same time? Can something be and not be at the same time in the same manner?

 

Yes, it is also a human book, written to humans in human language.

Yes, where it is a faithful translation it can be said to be inspired.It is generally called derivative inspiration.

Not really, but see above about derivative inspiration.

No, but see again about derivative inspiration.

Your posting here belies some series misinformation that you have received and bought into.

 

HP: Let’s start here. And what might that be?

 

As I said, your fundamental misunderstanding of inspiration and its relation to translations.

 

HP: OK

HP: This is getting highly subjective in nature, for who or how do we ascertain when it is faithful? Could you explain the term derivative for the list as you are using it?

HP: I am unsure what ‘not really means. Is that a yes, or no, or maybe, or I don’t have the foggiest?:)
All I see above is the word ‘derivative’ with no explanation. I will await your definition.

HP: I am staring intently at the word ‘derivative’, but nothing just pops out at me that would indicate that something can be and not be at the same time in the same sense. When one tries to defy God given logic it takes some serious effort to deceive oneself otherwise. Patience must be in order. ;) :)

 

By comparing it to the original language texts.

Its inspiration is derived from its accuracy. When it is accurate, it is inspired.

It means you are not asking a question with mutually exclusive answers. In one sense the answer is yes, and in another sense it is no.

 

HP: Prove it to the list with sound reasoning, logic and effective debate. It takes more than a shoe cobbler saying that he is the best in town to establish the truth as to whether or not he really is.:wavey:

 

I am sorry this is so boring at this stage for the listener, but hang in there. If Pastor Larry gets on track with some substance to back up his claims, there is a good chance that this might in fact be a very enlightening and enjoyable debate. :thumbs:

 

That's been done in numerous places. But to make it simple, it is clear that the Bible is inspired by God and therefore without error. It is also clear that all copies of original language texts and translations have some error of some sort in them, be it a printer's error (which is still an error), a copyist's error (such as transposing letters, mispelling words, etc), or a translational error (much less common given the variety of sense available for any construction). Therefore, it is clear that inspiration does not demand perfect preservation.

Furthermore, it is clear that Jesus and the apostles used a text of the Bible (whether Hebrew or Greek, though the latter is most likely) that was neither the originals, nor the KJV, thus proving beyond any question that something other than the originals and the KJV can rightly be called the inspired word of God and can be authoritative for the church.

Much more could be said, but not much more really needs to be. As the old saying goes, "Good enough for Paul, good enough for me." Since he didn't use the KJV, I don't feel compelled to. And since he didn't use the TR, I don't feel compelled to use that either.

 

Tinytim:
"No, I am not questioning anyone's salvation... I am saying that Satan has successfully indoctrinated his doubt of God's word into God's kingdom... so much so that even well meaning Christians, (as I am sure you are) are being deceived into beleiving that other versions of the Bible are from Satan and not God."

GE:
In your post just before this you discussed Greek manuscripts with HP; there's a big difference between that and 'versions'.

One thing remains undeniable after all the debating: the 'interpretation' or 'translation' of Modern versions (those since the 1900's and especially since the later half of it, made from whichever compilation of the Greek) for definite, deliberated method - rendered MUCH of the Bible differently than before, and in such a way that either the earlier or the later 'editions' MUST contain falsehood, for the 'older' and the 'newer' in no honest way are reconcilable.

 

HP: And what method do you use when they don’t say the same things?

HP: What help does that give us?? We are still back to how do we know what texts are the most accurate thence inspired? I certainly hope by not by following the practice of buying into the baseless theory that older is better. That is certainly an unproven theory at best.

 

That's a different issue. If I understood correctly, your previous question was about translation. This question is about textual criticism. There are a number of ways to go about it, but it is widely agreed that the eclectic method is the most sound.

At this point, everyone must do textual criticism and reject something that God has preserved for us. That's just the nature of the best.

It gives us an answer for how we can say something is inspired and inerrant, but still have errors.

See above.

"Older is better" is a very small piece of a very large pie. But "unproven" and "baseless" are two different things. No one who has even a remote idea of the issues says that it is baseless. It clearly has a base, as shown by our own tendency to try to get as close as possible to a source (be it a rumor, or a new story, or whatever else). Most will say it is unproven (but so are all the alternatives). It is an issue of transcriptional probability, and that has been studied and certain methods are more probably than others.

 

HP: What help does that give us??

HP: We are still back to how do we know what texts are the most accurate thence inspired?

PL: See above.

HP: Are you pointing us in a circle?

HP: I certainly hope by not by following the practice of buying into the baseless theory that older is better. That is certainly an unproven theory at best.

HP: It may be a little piece of a very large pie, but a little leaven leaveneth the whole pie. Tell us Pastor, how does it prove that getting the oldest available manuscripts are closer to the source of truth? It is a well known fact that the best manuscripts are often the most used and more often than not destroyed by such use. It is another possibility held by some well known scholars, that the originals of the best manuscripts were in fact destroyed after copies were made and after they had fallen into disrepair, while corrupted manuscripts that were not used could have well survived longer, thus appearing to be older. Older surviving manuscripts have no weight simply by their age as being closer to the originals. That point has been proven by other surviving manuscripts of other works that have been proven to be in error after close examination.

The fact is that no matter what side of this issue you fall on, it is often the theories of man that we are laying our faith in when it comes to deciding who is correct. When I see the divisiveness and confusion wrought upon the church as a direct result of the proliferation of translations and versions, it is not hard for me to decide on a solid translation that has guided the church for centuries. Thank God for the KJV. Just think. A bible for the common man that one does not have to ask for permission to use, copy or distribute.

Have you ever wondered why the drug companies despise health foods so much, and why they don’t try and market the natural ones that are known to be effective? You don’t suppose that the same reasons might apply in some manner in the world of printing and advocating modern versions of the Scriptures do you?

 

Exactly so, brother Gerhard Ebersoehn. But it is you who can not resolve the 'conflict' reconcile. The people who have decided that the KJVs can never be improved upon - have 'solved the problem' - they have reconciled saying no new translation can be right - ever. But that solution causes more problems than it cures. My trailer contains my reconciliation - and would work, if we worked together and didn't eschew cooperation one with another or acceptance of the Baptist Tradition of believing in the Compentcy of the Believer Doctrine. Indeed, many Baptists today don't even know what the Compentcy of the Believer Doctrine is - the Priesthood of the Believer Doctrine in different words.


-

 

work,

HP: Your trailer contains clear logical contradictions that will never serve to reconcile honest differences except in your own mind possibly. It ignores the glaring differences and refuses to face the facts head on that they all do not say the same things and therefore they cannot all be right. Your intentions appear honorable but your solution remains far less than viable.