Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

[Phillip]

Originally posted by David Rea:
To an extent you are. The issue is more complex. I am not opposed to a translation different than the KJV. However, all modern translations are based on a different Greek text. The modern translations are sold based on the "readability" argument, no mention is made that they are trasnlated from a different Greek text. The public, as a whole, has no comprehension of this.

Uh, 'scuse me. We'll take this one step at a time. You just quoted Exodus 12:13. This has nothing to do with Alexandrian texts.

Do you think the different text streams is some new revelation in our churches?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by David Rea:

second, most literal to what text?

The Hebrew it was translated from.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Why don't we look at it in a more literal translation like the NASB. I myself am not a CEV fan nor do I know that much about it. So, I stick to the mainstream MV's and the NASB is about as close to the Hebrew as you can get--and as we know, we are dealing with the Old Testament so it is simply a translational issue, not a manuscript problem.

Here is about as close as accurate as you can get in translating the actual Hebrew:

Exodus 12:13 NASB
And the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

Notice God wants to see the blood. Why does He need to see the blood in order to pass over. Does He not know where they live?

Yes he does, that is my point. The cev indicates that he does not know, the blood is not for God to know where they live (cev) but for the people, and thier deliverance.

I accept the NASB reading of the passage. Not a problem. But the CEV is wrong, or at best misleading.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by David Rea:

Originally posted by Phillip:

If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?

You seem to be doing a lot of quoting from a KJVo book. Some texts say "God" some say "Son". The bottom line is that nobody knows what the "original autographs said". Either way, since He is "begotten", then He is both God and Son. One in the same; no difference. Now that is pretty obvious.

. . . amazing how God preserves His Word isn't it?

Yes, there just happen to be a majority of texts (why its called "majority" hmmmm) anyway, there are many more of these texts available than much "OLDER" texts. Because they were produced by Byzantine paper mills where copies of copies of copies were made? Either way, can you prove what the original autographs say?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by David Rea:

Then if you do accept it, how do you explain Christ being called begotten? Even if you use the alternitive definition for begotten (mongenes) you still have two explain two Gods - one in Heaven that no man has seen, and one on earth.

This is an example of an Arian coruption of a text that has found its way into the modern bibles.

Are you denying that Jesus was God?


Tell me David, what does the New Testament say about WHO created the universe?

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:

Originally posted by Phillip:

If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?

You seem to be doing a lot of quoting from a KJVo book. Some texts say "God" some say "Son". The bottom line is that nobody knows what the "original autographs said".

Either way, since He is "begotten", then He is both God and Son. One in the same; no difference. Now that is pretty obvious.

. . . amazing how God preserves His Word isn't it?

Yes, there just happen to be a majority of texts (why its called "majority" hmmmm) anyway, there are many more of these texts available than much "OLDER" texts. Because they were produced by Byzantine paper mills where copies of copies of copies were made? Either way, can you prove what the original autographs say? </font>

No, but these folks can... They probably saw them!

Ignatius (1st Cent. - Disciple of John, Bishop of Antioch, Syria)
** "And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father."
Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians, II. This Epistle is not considered authentic. Yet he is quoting somthing.

Irenaeus (2nd Cent. - Disciple of Polycarp, {disciple of John}, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul {France})
"For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XI

"He is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: "No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him.]"{8}... But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (**as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him];" and He does Himself also interpret the Word of the Father as being rich and great); not in one figure, nor in one character, did He appear to those seeing Him, but according to the reasons and effects aimed at in His dispensations, as it is written in Daniel." [Italics added] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XX
The (italicised) portion above is clearly a later addition to the text of Irenaeus. The brackets were placed by the translator to mark this interpolation. The structure of the sentence shows clearly that the text originally did not contain this portion. Irenaeus had just quoted John 1:18 using "only begotten Son." Furthermore, the addition is in error by saying "as also the Lord said" when in fact it was John the Apostle who was writting his own words as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Clement (2nd Cent. - Lived in Alexandria, head of Alexandrian school)
"For how shall he not be loved for whose sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and saying, "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me;"" Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, ch. III

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:

second, most literal to what text?

The Hebrew it was translated from. </font>[/QUOTE]Just to go back and clarify what I did say:

So, I stick to the mainstream MV's and the NASB is about as close to the Hebrew as you can get--and as we know, we are dealing with the Old Testament so it is simply a translational issue, not a manuscript problem.

I don't remember saying literal to a text...I remember saying as close "to the Hebrew". You know, the Hebrew that both your KJV and the NASB came from.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by David Rea:

Originally posted by Phillip:
[qb]

Originally posted by David Rea:
[qb]

Originally posted by Phillip:

If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?

Okay, so I don't take up webspace. What's your point?

You started quoting the Old Testament, then you jumped to New Testament. I haven't finished with Exodus yet. How did this lead into Alexandrian documents?

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:

Originally posted by Phillip:

If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?

You seem to be doing a lot of quoting from a KJVo book. Some texts say "God" some say "Son". The bottom line is that nobody knows what the "original autographs said". Either way, since He is "begotten", then He is both God and Son. One in the same; no difference. Now that is pretty obvious.

. . . amazing how God preserves His Word isn't it?

Yes, there just happen to be a majority of texts (why its called "majority" hmmmm) anyway, there are many more of these texts available than much "OLDER" texts. Because they were produced by Byzantine paper mills where copies of copies of copies were made? Either way, can you prove what the original autographs say? </font>

No, and neither can anyone else, but as you know textual critism is about making the best choices. The best choice has not been made.

"Either way, since He is "begotten", then He is both God and Son. One in the same; no difference. Now that is pretty obvious."

Not really. How was his divinity begotten? This is contrary to scripture.

Even if thier is no theological implications, and thier are, it is clear from all of the data that the "god" reading is wrong!

Why are their no quotes prior to the third century that support it?

Why do all of the quotes prior to the third century refrence the "son" reading?

Why do all of the other geographic areas in which text types come from render it "son"?

Why is the "God" reading isolated to a single area?

Can I know what the originals say? No. Can I think and come to a logical conclusion? Yes.

The two manuscripts that contain the "god" reading, don't even agree with each other in many other passages. By thier own testimony they are disproven. They both cannot be like the originals if they are both different! This is simple logic.

So what happened?

Somebody changed the text. Either it was changed to "son" from "God", or it was changed to "God" from "son". One is wrong!

Which one is it? You have to make a call. All the version make a call. Some say son, others god. Which is it? One is wrong!

But is the choice that hard? Does not the evidence speak for itself? History proves that the Arians corupted texts! This is not disputed, they do it today (NWT - JW's bible)

The new version are on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:

Originally posted by Phillip:
[qb]

Originally posted by David Rea:
[qb]

Originally posted by Phillip:

If one would like to debate which text is best, I would suggest John 1:18. Should it read only begotten God, or only begotten son?

Okay, so I don't take up webspace. What's your point?

I agree with you that the NASB is a good translation of Exodus. But the CEV is not.


You started quoting the Old Testament, then you jumped to New Testament. I haven't finished with Exodus yet. How did this lead into Alexandrian documents?

</font>

John 1:18 is translated Only begotten God, because Arians corupted it. The evidence shows this. Yet it is accepted in the new versions of the Bible.

You brought up the point that the issue was KJV onlyism, I brought a reason for KJV onlyism.

I hesitate at the title KJV only, the issue i have is the texts used to translate, since no moden version (partial exception for nkvj) used the TR, I am leary of them.

 

[Phillip]

I keep asking you a question and you keep going to other places.

What does John have to do with Exodus that has nothing to do with Alexandrian documents? Let's finish one thing at a time before we move on. Is that so hard to do? Or are you going to play KJVo games and only answer the questions that you find relevant?

Or is this not in the KJVo book that is open on your desk?

 

[Phillip]

Okay, so you are TR only. Again, what does that have to do with Exodus?

 

[Phillip]

Okay, since you only want to discuss the New Testament, are you saying that Jesus is NOT God? That the idea of Jesus' diety is an Arian heresy? What does "begotten" mean to you?

Where is there proof that "Arian heresy" modified the "Alexandrian documents"?

How do you know the quotes from the church fathers were not changed by the same well-meaning scribes who made additions to the TR as they "faithfully" copied the text?

By the way, which version of the TR do you subscribe to today as being the most faithful to the original autographs?

 

[Phillip]

Why do you say "partial" exception for the NKJV? Just because it tells the truth in the footnotes?

 

[Phillip]

I guess I put him to sleep. Oh, well.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Rea:

Then if you do accept it, how do you explain Christ being called begotten? Even if you use the alternitive definition for begotten (mongenes) you still have two explain two Gods - one in Heaven that no man has seen, and one on earth.

This is an example of an Arian coruption of a text that has found its way into the modern bibles.

Are you denying that Jesus was God?


Tell me David, what does the New Testament say about WHO created the universe? </font>[/QUOTE]No, I am not denying that Jesus is God. The verse says a "begotten god" - the Bible is clear that no part of the trinity was ever begotten. This refers to the incarnation of the son.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Okay, so you are TR only. Again, what does that have to do with Exodus?

Exodus was brought up, before you brought up the issues of kjv only.

I have addressed exodus, and have addresses kjv only.

If you missed something, i would be happy to repeat it.

 

[gb93433]

If you understand oral tradition you will know that many things were in circulation that are not considered scripture.

Even the things which Jesus did were not recorded until about thirty years after he left. There is not one shred of evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was ever in an original manuscript.

Take a look at John 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen"

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I keep asking you a question and you keep going to other places.

What does John have to do with Exodus that has nothing to do with Alexandrian documents? Let's finish one thing at a time before we move on. Is that so hard to do? Or are you going to play KJVo games and only answer the questions that you find relevant?

Or is this not in the KJVo book that is open on your desk?

They both have to do with translation. The CEV is an example of a bad translation. John 1:18 is an example of bad textual critism.

I am sorry if that was not clear from my previous posts.

As for kjv onlyism, you will find that I am very open. I have used many diferent Bible translations, I hesitate to say this, but i went to a pentacostal church for 9 years before converting to the truth - baptist... I have gone to four years of seminary education, baptist, and am 100% baptist. (disclaimer needed bc of wacky background

)

I have found glitches in the KJV (don't tell my peers...) But i have also found much larger issues with the texts used in the modern bibles. I have copies of Tyndal's NT, and the Geneva NT. Both are good traslations. I will even use modern versions in study - as long as the text is the same. In other words, I first check the TR, and then the Nestles - If they match, as they often do, I have no problem consulting the NASB, etc.

My concern lies with the times they are not the same.

Hope that helps to clarify my thinking.

 

[David Rea]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Okay, since you only want to discuss the New Testament, are you saying that Jesus is NOT God? That the idea of Jesus' diety is an Arian heresy? What does "begotten" mean to you?

Where is there proof that "Arian heresy" modified the "Alexandrian documents"?

How do you know the quotes from the church fathers were not changed by the same well-meaning scribes who made additions to the TR as they "faithfully" copied the text?

By the way, which version of the TR do you subscribe to today as being the most faithful to the original autographs?

Jesus is God, he is just not the begotten God of the Arians.

"Where is there proof that "Arian heresy" modified the "Alexandrian documents"? "
It is the logical deduction of the evidence.

"How do you know the quotes from the church fathers were not changed by the same well-meaning scribes who made additions to the TR as they "faithfully" copied the text?"

Again it comes down to logic. What evidence is their of this? None. What makes more sense: a God fearing believer altering the word of God in violation of a clear comanadment of God? Or a unbelieving heritic altering it to fit his false teachings?

It's not too tough...