The "Inspiration" controversy for KJVO only

Pastor_Bob said "I trust that I have understood your questions and answered them accordingly. I would be happy to clarify any of the above if needed."

Thanks, Pastor_Bob. I am aware of most of what you posted. However, the most I can logically gather from your comments is that you believe in general the "received text" closely represents what was originally written, but that the "received text" you have in mind is not any single document, but the range of traditional readings in a range of manuscripts. No single edition of the "textus receptus" matches any other edition perfectly, and none match the KJV or any other English translation perfectly. Thus when you say "it" represents the originals and does so "accurately", you cannot be referring to any single hold-in-your-hand text, nor can you mean 100% accuracy. This is more the point of my questions.

I have little argument against those who hold to a position of "the TR is superior", but cannot accept the position of "the TR is a perfect and totally accurate representation of the originals". I guess I was just trying to clarify which side of the line you stood.

 

I believe that the "received text" (defined as the manuscripts generally received by the early church) were an accurate representaion of the originals. These manuscripts became larger in number and contained more and more scribal erros with each new generation of copies.

I believe that a compilation of these manuscripts into a single document which would reflect the majority readings of the mss would constitute a text which accurately represents the originals.

I agree with this statement.

I believe in the doctrine of preservation. I believe that God commands you and me to live and govern our lives by His Word. In order to do that, we must have access to His Word. It is by faith that I believe that God providentially guided the men who produced the Greek text from which we get our KJV Bible and its forerunners.

I realize that these answers appear to be a bit ambiguous, but again, it is by faith that we are to walk and not by sight (II Cor. 5:7).

It is true that no single text is a identical reflection of the KJV or even of each other. However, when you put them together you can create a very accurate text which I believe is reliable amd 100% accurate.

Can a translation be the preserved Word of God? Yes, I believe that God can preserve His Word through the translation process as well as He did through the copying process.

I guess I am somewhere between these two points of view. I really haven't ever thought of trying to define or label my position. I guess I know what I believe and feel comfortable that it is right.

 

Hi Pastor_Bob,

I was fine with everything you posted except this single statement: "However, when you put them together you can create a very accurate text which I believe is reliable amd 100% accurate."

What do you mean "put them together"? When you put them together, and they disagree here and there on a word or phrase, how is 100% accuracy achieved and identified?

 

I realize that this is basic and I in no way am attempting to insult your intelligence, but for the benefit of the other readers I offer this answer.

Although no two manuscripts or texts are identical, they do have agreement in most cases. In an instance where they may disagree on a word or phrase, you would simply take the majority reading and consider it as the correct reading.

For example, if I were comparing 10 copies of our church constitution that were produced in the 50+ years our church has exisited, and, I was trying to produce one copy that we can declare as accurate as representative of the original church constituion drafted 59 years ago, I would consider as accurate only those portions of the constitution that were in agreement with the majority of the copies I had available to me.

If one copy said, "No person other than a member of this church shall hold any office in this church," and the other nine copies said, "No person other than a member of this church in good standing shall hold any office in this church," then I would consider the reading of the nine to be accurate.

 

Pastor_Bob, I'm hontestly not trying to be belligerent. But there are places where 1. no "majority" is found (i.e. multiple readings have equal presence), 2. majority might be the result of derivation from a corruption (i.e. an old manuscript adds or changes a word, then that manuscript is later copied more than the accurate manuscript is), and 3. the textus receptus sometimes follows minority readings (e.g. 1 John 5:7).

Your position, although preferring the traditional texts, is really no different than ours - no single document can exclusively be called "the word of God", textual examination and criticism is required when differences appear in manuscripts, and the "word of God" is preserved through a range of manuscripts and translations despite minor differences between them all. I guess the only difference between you and me is that I am willing to put more manuscript on the table than you are.

 

natters, that is where weighting comes into play. It is a difficult subject to understand even for those who are well read on the subject.

I believe we can live with our differences and continue to fellowship. Come and see me sometime when you are passing throught southeast Kansas.

 

Pastor_Bob, what do you think of translations (like the LITV or MKJV) that follow the textus receptus more closely than the KJV does? Does this make them superior (more accurate) than the KJV? Why or why not?

I doubt I'll be visiting or passing through Kansas anytime soon, but maybe God has plans for me he hasn't made me aware of yet.

 

natters, I haven't spent a great deal studying the LITV or the MKJV. I do have these two versions on my Bible program. I will look at them as time allows.

 

Pastor_Bob, I wasn't really asking specifically about those two translations, but more about the general idea of being more faithful to the Textus Receptus than the KJV is. I mentioned the LITV and MKJV just as examples to demonstrate that my question was not simply hypothetical: Would any translation that is more faithful to the TR be superior (more accurate) to the KJV?

 

I have a problem with the phrase "the Textus Receptus." I would say that any translation that accurately represents the originals would be a superior translation.

I am not going to say that any translation would be "superior to the KJV," in that I believe that the KJV is an accurate representation of the traditional Received Text which is an accurate representaion of the originals.

 

Pastor_Bob said "I am not going to say that any translation would be "superior to the KJV," in that I believe that the KJV is an accurate representation of the traditional Received Text which is an accurate representaion of the originals."

Maybe it's semantics. I don't understand why you have a problem with "Textus Receptus". By "the Textus Receptus", I simply mean "the traditional Received Text" that you are referring to. As you know, "textus receptus" is simply Latin for "received text", and is the common name for it. Yes, the KJV is a fairly accurate representation of the traditional Received Text, but just as there are translations that are a less accurate representation of the traditional Received Text (and thus I would assume you would believe these to be inferior to the KJV), there are translations done that are a more accurate representation of the traditional Received Text.

 

--------------------------------------------------
How is it you can say that God authorized the perfect translation in 1611 (pick a year)? And if you allow for progressiveism, then we should still be improving upon the KJV.

English is not settled. Like all living languages, it continues to mutate. If you want a fixed language, try Latin, which is truly dead. Beautiful, but dead. It will never change, which is a benefit for scholars but of little practical use for we who are not.
--------------------------------------------------

Because that was when it was a standardized language, yes, even until today, with the exceptions of some archaic words. How do I know this was fixed? I do not limit God in this way. All I know of is that from that time, until this very day, this is the word of God perfectly in our language.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Excellent. Dr Ruckman gives you an A.

HankD

 

From the OP:

Please respect that request by the author of this thread.

 

If 17th century Elizabean-Jacobean English is so it, why don't you speak it or type it?

The KJV itself is not inspired, but it is a very good, accurate translation of God's inspired words.

BTW, in spite of what someone here may accuse me of, I am KJVO #1. I prefer the KJV over all other versions, but I will not force my preference on anyone else. I do read and use other versions at times. I also believe that with proper revision, the NKJV can easily become the Standard Bible as the KJV has been in the past.

 

According to Dr. Bob's I'm 2.75 on the KJVO scale
(Scrivener's 1894, but it needs 6 corrections IMO).

My two main bring-to-church Bibles are the 1769KJV and AV1611 First Edition (facsimile).

Do I qualify askjo? Otherwise I'm sorry I posted.

askjo himself is not radical KJVO. When people request KJVO only (oops, redundacy there), perhaps they should add a qualifier or 2 since it's a pretty broad brush.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------

If 17th century Elizabean-Jacobean English is so it, why don't you speak it or type it?
--------------------------------------------------

I do, just about everyday. Do you not see the scripture references I post? Do you not understand some many of the words I am using right now in this post? Just open up the KJB and see how many words I use in this post, that are also in the KJB. Then tell me I am wrong.

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV itself is not inspired, but it is a very good, accurate translation of God's inspired words.
--------------------------------------------------

The word of God says differently, that the scriptures are inspired, and authoritative. If they are not the inspired words of God, then they are not authoritative.


--------------------------------------------------
BTW, in spite of what someone here may accuse me of, I am KJVO #1. I prefer the KJV over all other versions, but I will not force my preference on anyone else. I do read and use other versions at times. I also believe that with proper revision, the NKJV can easily become the Standard Bible as the KJV has been in the past.
--------------------------------------------------

This only shows me your compromise and justification with error, rather than warning others of the errors in the mv's.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Why therefore speakest thou not after this manner whence thou doth communicate with thy BB fellows or peradventure on the telephone?

HankD

 

Did you ever notice that the colons (
and semicolons ( in the KJV1611 are placed
half way between the preceeding word and the
following word? In the KJV1769 the colons
and semicolons are place right after the
word they follow.

BTW, can you relate someday to me
the usage of thee and thou? I know some folks
who thee and thou in a special prayer
language (in, of course, a KNOWN tongue:
Elizabean-Jacobean English.