KJV and the modern versions

HP: An interesting thought Ann. Then why in the world have I witnessed a thousand times over from the pulpit and over the air waves that verse used to deny that it is possible for a believer to have condemnation? If in fact the truth of the verse is set forth as it is in God’s Word, ‘only those walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh’ could be free from condemnation, again, according to the clear teaching of the Word of God. Why is the doctrine set forth clearly by some in direct opposition to this passage? Certainly the theories of modern translators and critics add fuel to a false notion with their elimination of this portion of the Word of God.

Here again is the Word of God, regardless of the manuscripts one can find to the contrary. If you do not have that kind of God-inspired faith in the manuscript(s) or trnaslations you follow, I would suggest you find one that God’s Spirit will testify the truth to your heart in such a way that no translator cutting and pasting, theorizing about the proper translation process, can never sow a seed of doubt in your mind again. . Ro 8:1 ¶ There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Bear in mind that 95% of all available manuscripts agree with the text used by the KJV trnaslators.

I fully believe that if the theorizing of textual criticism W&H and other modern translators would ever succumb to a scientific inquiry as attempted by men such as Burgon, the theories used by W&H and others would crumble as a sand castle in a rising tide.

 

You didn't clearly note my personal attack because I made none. Please do not say I did. I have shown a number of things on which you are in error.

This verse in either rendering agrees. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Those in Christ Jesus are marked by the way that they walk. That is clear in teh passage.

This is simply false.

On what basis do you clear a particular rendering to be the Word of God? Why do you eliminate other things that God has preserved for us?

You seem to be the only one with doubt here. I know that I have no doubt.

So if 95% of manuscripts said that Jesus was the devil would they be correct? Of course not, thereby showing that truth is not up for a vote. It doesn't matter how many agree. What matters is what God said.

Many have tried long before you and have failed.

 

HP: Hello list? What do you think?

 

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that if 95% of manuscripts said Jesus was the devil, he would be the devil? That's the only alternative to my question, so far as I can see.

 

IMHO 'spirit' is not equal to 'Spirit'.

Things that are different are not the same. There is a difference here. Which one is right?
The above statement is false:

The below statement is true:
Amen, Brother Gerhard Ebersoehn -- Preach it! :thumbs:

The above statement is true

The below statement is true:

 

Hot link to Steaver's new thread: 'Born of God' :

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=54021

 

HP: Does anyone besides me smell a dead fish of the red herring nature? :wavey:

 

Perhaps you should put that sentence here?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=50220&page=7

which is at:
Games Forum Mix your Metaphors here

 

For the benefit of the reader, there are some excellent sources that discuss in detail the whole matter of textual criticism we have been discussing. I especially like three books by David Otis Fuller, D.D. entitled, “Which Bible,” “True or False?” and “Counterfeit or Genuine.” All three are written in an easy to read and easy to comprehend style that gets to the very heart of the matter we are discussing. I consider them must reads on the issue.

For the scholars, that like to dig, follow Herman C. Hoskier’s two volume set "CodexB and it's Allies, A Study and An Indictment." They discuss with critical detail the thousands of changes and omissions in differing texts of varying languages, setting forth clear evidence of many issues, including the point that the texts, "BCL" are in reality clear representations of the same text, and are no wise neutral texts whatsoever, but are in fact “purely Egyptian.”

That brings to mind another interesting tid bit of textual retention. Do you suppose that the simple fact of climate in some areas might well be more conducive to the preservation of old manuscripts, while other areas more prone, in moister climates, to a faster decay process? Now that is a profound thought. One that even us laymen can put our arms around. It certainly beats a bunch of unproven man made theories. :thumbs:

 

HP: Thanks, but I believe here is fine.:thumbs:

 

Yep, Egyptian made 'CT = Critical Texts' spent centuries in dry climates. Byzantine made 'MT = Majority Texts' spent a few hundred years in a soggy Black Sea/Med Sea climate.

 

HP: Is that your story? I certainly made no such comment. I was simply referring to a fact of the effects of climate on the deterioration process, setting forth a sound logical and scientifically proven notion why older does not necessitate one manuscript that is older as being better, more accurate, or closer to the truth. It could be a simple matter of where texts were stored and in what climate. It would make sense to me that manuscripts originating in the arid climate of Egypt would certainly be far more apt to survive longer than in other middle eastern climates, if stored in like manner. Are you denying that climate has nothing to do with the preservation of manuscripts? Now that would be an interesting thing to notify the Smithsonian about.:thumbs:

 

No, you are avoiding the question.

 

HP: That’s what I appreciate the most about a translation that accords with 95% of the evidence available to the church, and utilize a tried and tested version that has stood every test of the critics for hundreds of years and still serves it well.

HP: Probably for the same reasons those in the monastery at least tried but obviously in vain to discarded it. It was viewed clearly as a corrupted and untrustworthy text.

 

http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/fathers7.htm​

HP: Here are some words by Origen on the Scriptures that certainly have me wondering about his views. I wonder if he had any input into any of the manuscripts such as were used in the formation of the translations influenced greatly by W&H?

​

 

Consider Origen (c.185-c.254AD) of
Alexandrian. People who think they take
the Bible more literally than others condemn
Origen for saying that there is much in the
Bible which can only be understood
on a spiritual level.

1 Co 2:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the naturall man receiueth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse
vnto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.

Back in his day, a person prosessing faith
in Messiah Yeshua were trained in The Faith
for two years before they were Baptized
(some were martyred prior to Baptism, blowing
the concept you have to do the Work of Baptistm
to get saved.) Origen was a Training Mentor for
new Converts.

When Origen came of age, he literally took
these verses:

Mat 18:8-9 Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foote cause thee
to offend, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better
for thee to enter into life, halt, or maimed, then hauing
two hands, or two feete, to be cast into euerlasting fire.
9 And if thine eye cause thee to offende, plucke it out,
and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter
into life with one eye, then hauing two eyes
to be cast into hell fire.

See also this scripture:
Mat 19:11-12 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition)
But he sayd vnto them, All men cannot receiue this thing, saue they to whom it is giuen.
12 For there are some eunuches, which were so borne of their mothers belly: and there be some eunuches, which be gelded by men: and there be some eunuches, which haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen. He that is able to receiue this, let him receiue it.

We are talking about a sacrifice here - not an offering! 'Geld' means physical castration. 'Eunuch' means a male who has been physically castrated.

Origen had his sexual members surgically removed
so he would be more interested in Serving
Messiah Yeshua than chasing women.
I really think Origen is condemned for being
way to literal but the words used to condemn
him say things like this passage from the Dictionary
of Premillennial Theology (Kregel, 1996):

Origen took Matthew 18:8-9 literal, but is publicity condemned for taking too many things symbolically. That seems strange to me. It is like unto that great Prayer Warrior & Man of Faith, Camel-Knees James who said 'show me your faith by your works'. It is like unto that great man of Works the Apostle Paul who said: "by faith, not of works lest any man should boazst'.

 

There is only one version of the KJV, it is the 1611 Authorized version.
Different editions of that same version came out to standardize spelling, upgrade to more modern English, and add some verses that were left out in the first priniting (a printing error).
The KJV used today is essentially the same as the 1611 version.
There are no revisions of the KJV, only editions.
I use a 1769 edition of the 1611 version of the KJV.

The modern versions, which mix in corrupted manuscripts vaticannus and sinaiticus [property of the vatican] are revisions of the bible. They are different versions.

http://www.scourby.com/whykjv.htm
Go to that website and read the article of why the KJV we have now is the same as the 1611 version; it is just a new edition of it.

 

Thank you for your honesty in admitting that the 1611 was indeed flawed and had to have verse added to it.

 

Ed, if you would use God's real Word, the KJV, and diligently learn it, as I have, then you would see in there how to obey God's will and not your own will.
I asked God to control what I believe and Know according to His will.
Now if you would use the real Word of God, then you would know how effective that is, if you mix it with faith.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:
1 John 5:15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.


Psalms 37:5 Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

However, if you allow your faith to be destroyed by fake bibles, it seems to me you will be doing your own will and not God's will.

After that prayer, what I like is going to be His will. See above scriptures.

Of, course if fake bibles have destroyed your confidence, then how can you have faith and please God?

 

[quoteHP: That’s what I appreciate the most about a translation that accords with 95% of the evidence available to the church, and utilize a tried and tested version that has stood every test of the critics for hundreds of years and still serves it well. [/quote]Every translation takes into account that 95%. But a few translation omit the rest and ignore it. I find it dangerous to do that.

So if they tried in vain to discard it, perhaps that is the hand of God sustaining his word against attacks so that we would have his word it. There is no evidence that surrounding the whole destruction theory of the manuscripts that I know of. I think that is an often repeated fable.

But I can't help but notice you are avoiding the major questions. I think I have shown some pretty serious flaws in your position, and you just ignore them.