Slandering God

Of course I was trying to direct your attention to the very early Church (the first decade or two after the Resurrection). Even though Paul wrote most of his epistles about 50-60 AD they were indivdually scattered (geographically). Would you really consider a collection of some epistles the New Testament? The Gospels and other NT books would come later. Would you consider a collection of books lacking the Four Gospels a NT? Would a collection of 26 books qualify as the NT? Jesus spoke of the Gospel being given during his ministry years (see Matthew 11:5, Mark 1:15, and similar). The disciples gave the Gospel during Jesus' lifetime (Luke 9:6) and could give the Gospel before Saul had been converted (Mark 16:15). The apostles also presented the Gospel in the first days of the formation of the Church (Acts 8:25). While the Gospel can be found in the OT, most people during these times did NOT own scrolls of scripture. All this shows that giving the Gospel is not dependant upon having written revelation readily at hand.

You seem to be resigned to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Bible translations can be (and are) sufficient without being 'perfect'.

By definition a perfect God would reveal a perfect message. However, our perfect God also originally spoke a perfect world into existance. The ancient manuscripts exist within the realm of this cursed Earth and are subject to corruption, but God has graceously protected His word on this planet to a miraculously high degree. Faithfully executed English translations (including the KJV) communicate God's revelation with a high degree of fidelity to the underlying texts.

 

Right. And, given the many correct renderings possible for many, many Hebrew or Koine Greek words pr phrases, it's impossible to nail down any one English translation as being "the one". And let us not forget that none of this is lost on GOD. It was HE who chose to present His word to us in those languages, and to cause/allow man to make translations in various other languages.

While the KJV was the most modern English translation of its day, that day was some 4oo years ago. And in that day, the most modern headache relief was by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull) to allow the "bad humours" to escape.

 

The answer commonly offered is that there is no significant difference between the 1611 and the 1769 (or other KJV) editions; the claim is that only spelling and puncuation was changed (perhaps some errors by the printers). Setting aside for the moment that I know there are some substantial textual differences between the KJV editions, my probe takes Ed's inquiry to another level: Why would it be acceptable to make changes of any kind of a text that is presumably 'perfect'?

Why couldn't have God ordained those printer's errors to be supernaturally included in the English? Why shouldn't we also have kept the original spelling? Generally we are admonished by KJV advocates to overcome the archaic words by learning the Elizabethan language, so why not adopt the orthography also? Why mess with perfection at all? Isn't that unnecessarily dangerous? Should we tamper with the archaic colors of Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa? Should the notes of Beethovan's 5th Symphony be updated?

 

You disagreed with my statement that “a translation can (and will) be flawed but still convey God's truth. This is just the reality of the situation (one of the affects of Adam's sin)".

Again, you have freely substituted 'preservation' (in your response) with "translation" (the subject of my statement). God had communicated directly with Adam in Eden. Later, Adam's sin brought corruption onto this planet; it was sin at Babel that caused God to frustrate man's efforts by creating multiple languages. Without sin there would be no need for translation.

It is true that man's sin will not prevent God from doing anything He desires. You have asserted that the Lord has perfectly preserved His Word for us. I assume you base your doctrine on Scripture; so show me a verse (or verses) that states that at all times people will have on this Earth all of God's words perfectly preserved in a written book (it doesn't even have to be specifically an English book).

 

Okay - show us where the text of the NKJV has been influenced.

 

Hi stilllearning! I was responding to EdSutton's question; any sarcasm found was not directed at you.

If you don't know, how can you dogmatically state that "He didn't"?

 

stilllearning, you said --

But you also said --

I can guarantee you that English of Wycliffe is different than Tyndale's (but you can check for yourself); and they're both different than the KJV.

 

Thats fine and the choice is up to you.

You claimed that the KNJV is influenced my the Alexandrian texts. Please show me where.

 

No copyright (which is not totally true) means that it has no protection. You can do whatever you want and still call it a KJV.

 

Would you then be ROFL, followed by the coughing/sneezing? Or would it be in the reverse order?

 

stiilllearning, I don't know where you are getting your information but several of the facts you have used are incorrect. There is NOT 5000 copies of the TR. The proper application of the Latin term Textus Receptus (TR) is to a group of about 30 different printed editions (not manuscripts, and not scrolls) of the Greek New Testament mostly produced over a period of about 100 years (so I'm not including Scrivner's edition here). The term 'Received Text' is misapplied to many other texts, including the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Latin, and occassionally English versions.

The number 5000 is often associated with the total count of extant Greek manuscripts, most of which are incomplete fragments of the NT, and many represent other textual traditions (different than the TR text). One of the textual traditions is called the Byzantine, and this type has been collated by at least two different groups of scholars into two similar printed Greek texts often collectively referred to as the 'Majority Text' (MT). The TR is also complied from mostly Byzantine manuscripts, but is distict from the MT.

 

For example, Ed, had the KJ translators translated the Greek "baptizo" as "immerse" instead of transliterating it to "baptize," (because they were sprinklers and pourers), i would be a "Southern Immerser" or "Southern Immersionist" today.

Although, Southern Baptist does flow more easily off the tongue.

 

WOW! Talk about revisionist history <whew>. I don't know where you got this info, but its WRONG. You have gotten a hold of some really bad stuff. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to correct everything for you. You wouldn't believe me anyway (at least, you shouldn't). You really need to read multiple reliable sources and review the true historical facts. Really, we (most of the regulars at the BB) have your best interest at heart.

 

Funny play on words, but YOU have only flawed translations, I have The Holy Bible!:godisgood:

 

They were able to perfectly relate the Gospel by word of mouth and their personal testimony.

When questions come from those doubters who try their best to deny the word of God, it helps to have the standard maintained for reference purposes to refute any of thier false claims.

satan knows this, that is why he has detoured so many to bring about so many new translations to confuse the soldier of God and do his best to weaken his armor!

You ask us "Which KJV?" we have the answer thrown in our face, "Three!" if not "Four!".

[Snipped - you cannot say that Satan authors other versions of the Bible]

Do the math!:godisgood: