1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Myth of no need of revision

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 6, 2013.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Does your assertion apply to the KJV translators? Did the KJV translators never admit that English-speaking believers before 1611 had a "perfect" Bible? The KJV was a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops]. Did the KJV translators not consider any of their original language sources [printed editions of the original language texts] to be perfect since they did not follow any one of them 100%? The KJV translators consulted and followed multiple, varying imperfect editions of the original language texts. What do you claim was the perfect Bible before 1611?

    According to a consistent application of your own assertion, did the KJV translators want to hammer truth out on “their own anvil” instead of accepting the English Bible read and loved by English-speaking believers of their day[the 1560 Geneva Bible]?

    Are you forgetting back then before 1611, the Geneva Bible was "the Bible" accepted, loved, and believed by English-speaking believers?
     
  2. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good morning Logos1560

    As I have said many times before, I am not KJVO!
    That is, I have never said that the King James Version, is the only accurate Bible we have in English.
    What I have been saying is that “most, if not all of the English Bibles” before 1881, were in agreement with each other(not carbon copies but close enough).
    (The Bible is “the Bible”.)

    Therefore, for anyone to say that “the Bible” only CONTAINS God’s Words, than we need someone to tell us which words in the Bible are truly God’s Word and which ones aren’t.
    That makes those people who you trust to “remove verses that aren’t suppose to be there”, your popes.

    For me, I believe that every verse in the Bible(KJB, WB, TB or the GB etc.), are God’s Word and that it is wrong to EVER remove any of them, regardless of what anybody says or any ancient manuscripts that may be discovered. (Do we need an ancient text to be discovered, for God to PRESERVE his Word for us “today”? NO!)
     
  3. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    I Admire Your Ability To Think In The Abstract!

    That was an incredible, though unbelievable attempt to create something out of nothing. You still did not supply ANY verse that speaks directly and specifically to the argument in progress. All you did is to "create" another "theory" based on scriptures that have been removed from their intended meaning and context.
    Basically what I get from what you are saying (the "big Picture" according to Logos1560) is that it is impossible for ANY translation to ever achieve equivalence with the Original Autographs (which no longer exist). Some of them may get "close" in your opinion....but none of them could ever possibly reach God's standard...which is always perfection. The originals were penned in languages that the majority of the world that now exists no longer speak...sooooo...we are all forced to be DEPENDENT on a select few "scholars" who are expert in the use and translation of these (now) minority (some would say "dead") languages to be able to truly understand the Word of God SINCE NONE OF OUR BIBLES CAN EVER BE COMPLETELY ADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS OF THE ORIGINALS! NOPE....I don't buy it...particularly when you consider the types of men which God used to actually "pen" His originals....they weren't primarily the ruling class of "scholars" were they? Many of them were pretty common. Well...twist it how you will...I still disagree. God made sure I could have His Word in a Book that I can have absolute and unassailable confidence in. I just wish I could be a better example of the kind of man that THAT Book instructs me to be. I guess that's about all I wish to say about this matter...for now.

    Bro.Greg:saint:
     
  4. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    One more response, and I have to go.

    Logos1560, I truly appreciate your thought provoking responses to my posts.
    (If I can’t support my beliefs, than I am in real trouble.)
    ------------------------
    After some thought, I think I myself may be somewhat “crackpotish”(peculiar), in a good way.....
    “But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” (1 Peter 2:9)

    But the crackpots that I was talking about in my post, were those who....
    “always reject the existence of a perfect Bible”!

    Now nowhere in this “preface”, do I detect the translators denying the existence of a perfect Bible. It all depends upon how you define “perfect”; but I define it as being a Bible that accurately records what God gave to the Apostles.
    For instance, God didn’t give them the Apocrypha, so it was removed.

    At about some point between the years 1382 and 1769, the English Bible was a work in progress. But we ended up with a PERFECT BIBLE IN ENGLISH, and Satan hated it; and for years worked hard to cast doubt upon it. Then about 115 years ago, he started getting the upper hand, and today we have Baptists, who can stand up and boldly say, that neither the King James Version nor any other version of the Bible, is God’s Word.

    What a shame.
     
  5. 12strings

    12strings Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    46,154
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Faith:
    Baptist
    the Holy Spirit ONLY inspired the Apostolic writers of the Word of God though!

    originals ALONE inerrant/inspired no mistakes in them...

    God preserved intact to us enough of them that we have essentially the written Word of God in the original language texts in use today, regardless if MT/CT/TR etc

    So the english versions would be based upon those texts, and so we would have though not inerrant, an infallible version of the Bible tous in KJV/NKJV/Nasb/Niv etc!
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    46,154
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why wouldn;t the geneva bible be considered that "perfect' version instead of KJV? reformers used that for their studying!

    Do you really hold those translators were given apostolic like authority to make the "perfect translation?"

    You do realise that NONE of them thought their work was either perfect or finished, that there would future editions/revisions/new translations using best available texts/sources as they had?

    Why isn't theNKJV that perfect translation, for it used SAME textual basis as KJV!
     
  8. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    2
    Up front -- The primary Bible version that I use is the Authorized Version. It is the one that I PREFER to use when seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit.

    That said, I own a number of other versions and do refer to them from time to time. Additionally, I use on-line resources to access versions that I do not personally own, when the need arises in study.

    Next, I've almost stopped coming to this forum. Too many, IMO, look at the far end of the Bell curve to find the most extreme and minority viewpoint of those with a KJBO position. Then, use that extreme to verbally beat up on anyone who does not support their "any modern version" is OK positions.

    IMO, any discussion of God's word should be done humbly and with reverance to our Creator. IMO, far too often His word is treated like a football on a muddy field. Get that ball over MY goalposts regardless of the bloody mayhem that's strewn along the yards traversed to that destination.

    I'm just a simple layman with Oh so much more to learn to based on God's promise and instruction.
    (Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15 - KJB http://www.biblegateway.com/ ).

    Yet, even I can see the impact that 1881 had on the Bible. A point, that it seems so many ignore as it's far easier to nitpick certain passages of scripture to make their case. How many who see no problem with W&H have ever read their writings? Ever learned about their involvement with things Christans should avoid like the plague? (Acts 8:8-10)

    You know, after reading so much of this muddy football tossing, the only thing that has kept me from becoming KJBO is a single passage of God's word, printed on the back of a business card, can help bring a lost soul to Christ. As far as I can determine, at least SOME of God's word is in every version. Yet, it seems that only one version is under CONSTANT subtle and not so subtle attack. That alone is enough to make me ask the question. Why?

    12 strings, you wrote:
    Please add this reason to your list. I believe that God keeps his promises.

    Amos 8: KJB​


    11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

    12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.


    Did 1881 start us down the path that leads to the fulfillment of His word? I have no doubt that it will come to past, in His timeframe. Are we watching it happen within our generations?
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist
    overgeneralizing without the facts

    You are evidently uninformed about the actual differences in all of the English Bibles before 1881.

    Even in just the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision [Tyndale's to Bishops.], there are most if not all the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as there are between the KJV and post-1881 English Bibles. There were differences of whole verses. Some pre-1611 English Bibles did not have two or three verses that are found in the KJV. At least two pre-1611 English Bibles had three whole verses in one Psalm that is not found in the KJV. There are even more differences in either added or missing phrases and clauses. There are differences in meaning of renderings. There are differences in grammatical forms used. There are differences that would involve interpretation or doctrine. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, there are even a great number more differences. I have reprint copies of the pre-1611 English Bibles including some editions of Wycliffe's Bible and have done some comparison of them.

    There were actually a number of different English Bibles after 1611 and before 1881. There was the 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Bible. I have a reprint copy of it. It would have some of the same textual differences and translational differences as would be found between Luther's German Bible and the KJV.

    I mentioned earlier John Wesley's 1755 New Testament. I have a copy of a later edition of Wesley's complete English Bible. There were many differences between Wesley's translation and the KJV. In his introduction to a comparison of Wesley's N. T. to the KJV, Fred Corson wrote: "With a fidelity for the truth, Wesley strove for
    accuracy, conciseness, and clarity. The validation
    of his scholarship is attested by the fact that in
    the revision of the New Testament in 1870 at least
    three quarters of his twelve thousand changes
    were accepted and incorporated in the new text"
    (Wesley's N. T. Compared with the A. V., p. xii).

    I also mentioned the 1842 revision of the KJV made by Baptists and other believers. It has a good number of differences with the KJV. I have a copy of this Bible.

    There was a 1851 English translation of the Syriac New Testament from the Peshitta made by James Murdock. There are many textual and translational differences between it and the KJV. I have a reprint copy of it.

    There was a 1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser.

    There was the 1862 Young's Literal Translation.

    There was the 1866 American Bible Union Version that has textual and translational differences if compared to the KJV.

    There was the 1808 Thomson's Bible, which had the first English translation of the Greek Septuagint for its Old Testament. Charles Thomson was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and seceretary of the Continental Congress.

    Having compared the KJV with the pre-1611 English Bibles and several pre-1881 English Bibles, I find that that your claims above are overgeneralized, misleading, and inaccurate. I could give page after page of the same type differences in those pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles that KJV-only advocates would complain about in post-1881 English Bibles.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist
    today's KJV is not the 1769

    In other words, you seem to be saying that there was no perfect English Bible before 1769. Along with being uninformed about the pre-1611 English Bibles and pre-1881 English Bibles, you are evidently also uninformed about editions of the KJV.

    I understand that many sources assert that today's KJV is the 1769 so I realize that you could be misled by them. It would be accurate to say that most [not all] present editions of the KJV are based on the 1769, but it would be inaccurate or incorrect to claim that they are identical to the 1769.

    All errors were not removed from the KJV by 1769 as some KJV-only authors have claimed. For example, KJV-only author Timothy Morton contended that "the 1762 and 1769 [editions] were to update the spelling" and that "by 1769 whatever slight textual errors that still remained were removed, and the text was finally free from any man-made error" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 42).

    While it corrected some errors, the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV actually also introduced some new errors. One error introduced in the 1769 Oxford at Exodus 6:21 remained in Oxford KJV editions over 100 years until at least 1880.

    T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule observed that the 1769 edition "contains many misprints, probably more than 'the commonly estimated number of 116‘" (Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scriptures, I, p. 294).

    I have been examining a KJV edition printed at Oxford in 1769 and have been comparing it to around 300 other editions of the KJV [18 printed in the 1600's, over 70 printed in the 1700's, over 70 printed in the 1800's, and many printed in the 1900's and after 200].

    Over 200 changes have been made to the KJV after 1769, some even made after 1880 in Oxford KJV editions and after 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions. There are actually twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today.
     
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you inventing an extreme that may not exist and that you do not show to exist? Which posters here supposedly advocate and support an "any modern version" is OK position?

    The fact that many posters disagree with unproven, non-scriptural exclusive only claims for one English Bible [the KJV] does not suggest that they oppose use of the KJV as a translation or that they support an "any modern version is OK" position.

    Are you distorting and misrepresenting the actual position of believers who disagree with a KJV-only view?

    The KJV is a good overall translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.
     
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    46,154
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I agree with BOTh the KJV and the modern versions as being BOTH word of God into English for us, but also reject the JW version, or the Mormons or ANY version NOT accurantly translating off the Greek/hebrew texts as being valid!
     
  13. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    2
    Logos, I respect that you are a well learned, intelligent, articulate man. At the same time I also know that you have read, just as I have, the extremes on both side of this issue. I also know, that with the depth of your studies, you probably encountered what I've said many times -- far more times than myself.

    Insert - Oh, almost forgot. Did you miss the "Bell Curve" reference which does not place everyone within a specific square box?

    Do you know how many times I've encountered "The KJV is a good overall translation" followed by a "but"? Equivalent to giving someone a guick pat on the head before delivering a swift kick elsewhere.

    Do you really want me to spend several hours with a search engine and BB search :type: to post page after page that supports a position that you know exists? How many references, that you've probably already seen many times, in your studies, would be sufficient? I haven't kept a complied & cross referenced list of them for quick and easy access.
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist


    I do not know that such a position exists since I have not encountered any position that I would consider an "any modern version is OK" position.

    While they may be many that would accept many modern versions, I do not know of any that actually claim all modern versions are OK.

    For example, many who accept modern versions would reject the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses, the Inspired Version by Joseph Smith, etc.
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,380
    Likes Received:
    161
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As I noted earlier, my disagreement with a KJV-only view has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. I have not recommended the Greek text of Westcott and Hort or the later Critical Text nor English translations made from them.

    Westcott and Hort held the same basic overall Church of England doctrinal views that the translators of the KJV held. Many who would condemn Westcott and Hort for their acceptance of a Church of England doctrine such as baptismal regeneration will say nothing against the KJV translators acceptance of the same Church of England doctrine. There seem to be some double standards or divers measures often used by KJV-only advocates who throw out their accusations against Westcott and Hort.

    How many who defend the KJV have ever read the writings of the translators of the KJV? Were the translators of the KJV involved in no questionable activities or practices?

    Several of the translators of the KJV were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted people for their beliefs. At least two KJV translators were directly involved in having two men burned at the stake for their beliefs.

    Adam Nicolson claimed: "Andrewes [KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes] could happily see a good, God-fearing, straight-living, honest and candid man like Henry Barrow condemned to death; and a debached, self-serving degenerate like Thomson [KJV translator Richard "Dutch] Thomson] elevated to the highest company" (God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, p. 100).

    Nicholson noted that Richard Thomson "was known as one of the wittest of all translators of the wildly obscene epigrams written by poet Martial in the Rome over which Nero presided" (p. 100).

    Adam Nicolson referred to this KJV translator as "the drunk pornographer Thomson" (p. 192).
     
  16. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,322
    Likes Received:
    71
    Acrostic algebra, my friend.


    BTW, that was intended to be a VERY sarcastic comment.
     
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    46,154
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think you nailed it, just also ahd to added needed a pair of glasses like j smith got from Moroni!
     
Loading...