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!

They Dare Call This Science!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archy posted: Here's one you brought up that I've never seen any Onlyist even ATTEMPT to explain: the differences between isaiah 53:7-8 and what the Ethiopian read in Acts 8:32-33. The Onlyists try to tell us that some of the differences between isaiah and Luke were caused by Jesus' "targuming" the passages as he read, but there's no such excuse available between Isaiah and Acts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps it's time to bring it up again.

    The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah, and this fact is clearly recorded in the Scriptures. This demonstrates that any form of "One Version Onlyism" is unscriptural."


    No, Archy, it demonstrates only that you have no inspired Bible and haven't considered other possible explanations.



    Isaiah 53:7-8 with Acts 8:32-33

    This is another example that is frequently brought up to disprove an inerrant Bible and promote the multiplicity of conflicting versions in use today. In this instance an Ethiopian eunuch refers to a Messianic passage found in Isaiah and his quotation seems to match the so called Greek Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew text.

    In Isaiah 53:7-8 we read: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. HE WAS TAKEN FROM PRISON AND FROM JUDGMENT: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken."

    In Acts 8:26-39 we have the account of Philip being sent to speak to an Ethiopian eunuch who had gone to Jerusalem to worship and was now returning home. He was reading the prophet Isaiah, and Philip asked him if he understood what he was reading. We are then told in verses 32-33: "The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth. IN HIS HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth."

    Then the eunuch said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

    A careful comparison of these two quotes show various shades of differences.

    Isaiah - "he is brought as a lamb"

    Acts - "he was led as a sheep"

    Isaiah - "and as a sheep before HER shearerS is dumb"

    Acts - "and like a lamb dumb before HIS shearer"

    Isaiah - "he was taken from prison and from judgment"

    Acts - "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away"

    Isaiah - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living"

    Acts - "for his life is taken from the earth"

    A simple explanation of these apparent discrepancies is that the Ethiopian was giving Philip a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew text, and Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, recorded the conversation. The meaning is basically the same whether in Hebrew or Greek.

    The Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship. He could most likely read Hebrew but not speak it very well. Most adults who learn a foreign language can read it long before they can speak it well. I doubt Philip spoke the Ethiopian's native tongue, so the only common spoken language between them was Greek.

    Another possibility was suggested to me by brother Schmuel. He says: "It is also very possible that the Ethiopian's Scripture version was in Geez (Ethiopic)not Greek. Remember we have "Beta Israel" (aka Falasha), Jews from Ethiopia from early times who read only Geez, and it seems not any Hebrew, although determining their language skills in 30 AD would be largely conjectural.

    ==================================
    Jewish Enclyclopedia 1911 about the Ethiopian Jews.
    http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FALCK.htm
    They possess not in Hebrew, of which they are altogether ignorant, but in Ethiopic (or Geez) the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament.

    A third likely explanation is that Luke, who himself was a Greek and was used by the Holy Ghost to record these things, translated the entire event into his own language. Luke may have learned of the conversion of the Ethiopian through Philip himself, and then translated the narrative into inspired Greek. Regardless of which language or tongues were originally used, God used Luke to record these events in his native tongue. We see this same thing in Acts 21:40 - 22:21, where Paul preached a whole sermon in the Hebrew tongue, yet the sermon is translated by Luke into Greek and thus it stands in the New Testament. This one example of many found in the Holy Bible proves that a translation can be the inspired words of God.

    The Hebrew word for "prison" in Isaiah 53 is # 6115 and is used only three times in the entire Old Testament. Once it is translated as "prison", another time in Psalms 107: 39 "they are brought low THROUGH OPPRESSION, affliction, and sorrow."; and the other time in Proverbs 30:16 as "the BARREN womb."

    When Christ was accused before Pilate and unfairly sentenced to death, this was indeed the hour of His humiliation and true justice was removed far off. The same general idea is expressed in both the Hebrew and the Greek translation given by the eunuch.

    Those who deny that the Ethiopian is translating a loose paraphrase of the Hebrew insist that he was using the Greek Septuagint translation. There is no historical evidence to prove this, but the assertion is frequently made in the strongest of terms.

    One of the problems faced by those who assert the apostles and other Jews used a LXX version, is that the LXX frequently matches neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the New Testament.

    Even in this passage the present form of the Septuagint rendition of Isaiah 53:7-8 does not perfectly match the New Testament Greek, and is quite different from the Hebrew text.

    There are frequent examples of a free quotation being given in the New Testament that does not match either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. See for example Acts 2:16-21 where Peter says: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..." There is a lengthy "quote" given by Peter, yet many words and whole phrases in the New Testament are not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint versions.

    The same is true in the first "quote" found in the book of Acts in chapter 1:20 where Peter again refers to the death of Judas as says: "For it is written in the book of the Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

    Yet if you look up these references in either the Hebrew or the Greek LXX, they do not perfectly match but give the same general sense either by typical fulfillment or expansion of thought.

    We also have the case in Acts 20:35 where Paul is addressing the elders of Ephesus and tells them "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
    You will search in vain for these exact words of the Lord Jesus in any of His discourses, yet several of the things He taught can rightly be summed up in this way.

    Even we lowly humans have the right to refer to what we have previously said by using different words. If I tell my child: "I don't want you to play with that boy anymore; he is too rough." and later, after I saw my child again with that other boy I tell him: "I told you not to see that kid anymore at all because he is a bully.", could I then be justly accused of contradicting myself?

    God, Who inspired every word of the Holy Bible, has every right to quote Himself by way of expansion, explanation, summation or variety of form; but you and I do not have the right to "correct, edit, or call into question" what He has said.

    Will Kinney
     
  2. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1 Timothy to 2 John

    "All teach the same thing", huh? Guys, your noted scholars are stumbling all over themselves and can't seem to make up their minds about what God really said.

    1 Timothy 1:1 "Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and LORD Jesus Christ, which is our hope;"

    The word LORD is in the majority of all texts and even in Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus manuscript is missing the whole section of the New Testament from 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and from the middle of Hebrews chapter nine to the end of the book. It is also missing the entire book of Revelation. In spite of the fact that the word "Lord" is in Sinaiticus, the NASB, NIV, ESV all chose to follow a later text (manuscript Alexandrinus) and omit this word from the title of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Nestle text has no footnotes telling us why they did this nor of the Majority reading of "Lord".

    2 Timothy 2:14 "Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before THE LORD that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."

    The reading of "the Lord" is in the Majority as well as A, D, and the Syriac. This is also the reading of the RV, ASV and the RSV. However Sinaiticus reads "charging them before GOD" and thus read the NASB, NIV and ESV.

    Hebrews 2:7 "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels: thou crownedst him with glory and honour, AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS."

    "And didst set him over the works of thy hands" is in the Traditional Greek texts, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also found in Sinaiticus, A, and C, and is the reading of the RV, ASV, and the NASB. However Vaticanus omits all these words and so do the NIV, RSV, and ESV.

    Hebrews 3:6 "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope FIRM UNTO THE END." (mexri telous bebaian). The words "firm unto the end" are in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, A, and C. The earlier Nestle-Aland Greek text included these words and so do the RV, ASV, and the NASB. However Vaticanus omits these three words and the newer Nestle-Aland text has once again been changed to omit these words along with the NIV, NRSV and the ESV.

    Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ...purge YOUR conscience from dead works..."

    "Your" conscience is the Majority reading as well as Sinaiticus. Vaticanus does not have Hebrews 9:14 to the end of the book, so it is of no help in determining the reading. "Your" conscience is the reading of the RV, ASV, and the NASB. But Alexandrinus reads: "purge OUR conscience" and so read the NIV, RSV, and ESV.

    Hebrews 11:37 "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, WERE TEMPTED (epeirasthnsan), were slain with the sword."

    "they were tempted" is in the Majority of texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and the Old Latin. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, and the NASB. The Nestle-Aland text used to read this way, but later they changed it too, based on only 2 insignificant Greek manuscripts, one being P46 which they totally disregard in many other portions of the book of Hebrews. Now the NIV, RSV, and ESV omit these words.

    1 Peter 1:22 "...see that ye love one another with A PURE (kathapros) heart fervently."

    The word "pure" is in the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus correction, C, and P72 which is the earliest text available. The earlier Nestle-Aland text omitted this word "pure" because not in Vaticanus and so do the NASB, NIV, and RSV. However now the Nestle text has once again changed and they now include the word "pure" and so do the ESV, ISV and the Holman Standard.

    1 Peter 3:18 This verse, as well as many others in First Peter, is a complete mass of confusion in the modern versions and the texts that underlie them. See my article called The Shifting Sands of Scholarship at http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1Pet.html

    "For Christ also hath once SUFFERED (epathe) for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring US to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit."

    The verb "suffered" is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Vaticanus and is the reading of the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, and ISV. However Sinaiticus reads "DIED" (apethanen) and so do the NIV, RSV, and NASB.

    Regarding "that he might bring US to God", this is the Traditional Greek text, Sinaiticus, A, C, and the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, and the ESV. But Vaticanus reads: "that he might bring YOU" and omits "to God", yet the NIV, NRSV, and ISV say: "that he might bring YOU to God".

    1 Peter 5:2 "Feed the flock of God which is among you, TAKING THE OVERSIGHT THEREOF, not by constraint, but willingly..."

    "taking the oversight" is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus correction, A, and P72. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NIV, NRSV, and ESV. The older Nestle-Aland text omitted this phrase, but the newer ones have put it back in. The versions that omit "taking the oversight" are the RSV AND the NASBs from 1960 to 1972. In 1977 the imminent scholars behind the NASB decided to put this phrase back in their version too. Vaticanus omits "taking the oversight", but if you get too excited about Vaticanus, you should note that it also omits the whole verse of 1 Peter 5:3.

    2 Peter 3:10 "...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP."

    "Shall be burned up" (katakansetai) is the Majority reading, as well as A, Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Coptic Boharic, and Ethiopic ancient versions. This is also the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, and the NASB. However, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain a non-sensical reading, which was never adopted until recently. The NASB footnotes that "Two early manuscripts read 'discovered'". Actually what they really say is "the earth and the works that are therin SHALL BE FOUND" (Greek - heurethnsetai), but this is too ridiculous even for the most fanciful of scholars, so several modern versions adopt this reading but paraphrase it so as not to seem quite so ludicrous. The NIV says the works shall BE LAID BARE; the ESV and ISV say they will be EXPOSED; while the NRSV and Holman Standard tell us the earth and its works "shall be DISCLOSED."

    2 John 12 "...I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that OUR joy may be full." "OUR joy" is in the Majority and Sinaiticus, and also is the reading of the NIV, RSV, ESV and ISV. However Vaticanus reads "YOUR joy" and so do the RV, ASV, and the NASB.

    Will the real Bible please stand up!

    Will K.
     
  3. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, what Will said. [​IMG]
     
  4. kman

    kman New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Will:

    Why do you keep pontificating about what
    the majority of greek witnesses say? Does
    that really matter to you?

    KJO are the ultimate minority advocates. From what I've seen and read, it really doesn't matter to them if the text is in the majority of greek witnesses, the minority, or has no greek witness support. They only care that ONE manuscript supports their reading: the King James Bible.

    If its there..then they'll defend it to the death
    regardless of the textual support for or against a reading.

    If I'm mistaken about this..please show me where/how?

    -kman
     
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dear Will,

    I am personally pleased (FWIW) that you are meeting us on the one ground that we all share, the evidences concerning the manuscripts which underlie the various Bible versions.

    However all your arguments are those which can be turned back to you for your own consideration.

    Briefly and the most important : You do not have a “perfect” English Bible and as many times as you say so, you have been reminded of the several revisions to the original edition of the 1611 KJV, the earliest of which was 1613. To simply ignore this fact shows the viewing public of this forum that you have no rebuttal except to simply repeat the KJV “inspired” shibboleth without being able to “form the words” of the explanation of the historically proven fact that the Church of England corrected the text of the 1611KJV of the Bible. So, we ask which revision is the "perfect" Word(s) of God since according to the KJVO definiton of "perfect" "things which are different are not the same".

    According to McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol 1, pg. 562 (1871) The translators archetype of the 1611KJV was lost in 1655.

    Welcome to the club Will, we do not possess the “original autograph” of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible as well as the original Greek and Hebrew autographs.

    Another matter:
    In spite of the fact that the koine Greek text of the NT cites the LXX over and over again the KJVO simply deny without conclusive evidence the reality of that provable fact.

    Somehow some unknown Alexandrians revised all the LXX manuscripts all over the world to agree with the koine Greek of the NT in the several places in which the LXX was used (This is why the KJVO must believe that the LXX is post NT BTW since this would be difficult even for those sneaky Alexandrians to change what did not yet exist).

    While you admit that there is Scriptural evidence that a translation is accepted by God and in fact embedded in the NT Word of God (the LXX no less), you have opened a proverbial “can of worms” Which ones and what is the criteria?

    You say “Will the real Bible please stand up!” because of a difference of one word in translation, and we are told that our “scholars are stumbling all over themselves and can't seem to make up their minds about what God really said”.

    But when we point out a one word difference (Ruth 3:15) between two editions of the KJV (and there are hundreds) and we ask the very same question we are told “both” are true in spite of the “things which are different are not the same” hammer we get bludgeoned with.

    Will, the Bible has somewhat to say concerning a double standard:

    Deuteronomy 25
    13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.
    14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small.
    15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

    There are several more arguments derived from the KJVO claims against the MVs which I would like to turn around and ask you, but they can wait until you answer this question: Which edition of the King James Version of the Bible became the “perfect” Word(s) of God?

    A-A answered a similar question with “Yes”. I believe those viewing this on-going KJVO debate here at the BB understand the validity of that kind of a double standard dodge or silence.

    HankD
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    These are either my words or words verys similar to mine. They are true whether you believe them or not and whether you can waste bandwidth by posting cute little songs that fosters a lie by mis-stating the position of KJVO opponents.

    I believe the Bible is true as much if not more so than you. I believe in the divine inspiration of both words and message in the originals and in the providential preservation of the inspired message through an abundance of imperfect, man-made copies and translations. My belief is consistent with the Bible's teachings on scripture, it is consistent with the Bible versions we possess, it is consistent with the history of the Bible, and it is consistent with the evidence we have for the originals. It is beyond me how someone who seems to be intelligent like you cannot understand this and to the contrary can believe something that stands in contradiction to all of the things I wrote above.

    Perhaps it is modernism, deeply engrained into your mind... that you cannot accept "the Word of God" unless you can subject it to a word count program or some type of measurable exemplar. In any event, God's Word is God's message. His revelation to mankind... not a single set of English words chosen by Anglican scholars.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hypocrisy. On the one hand you can believe that parallel passages that are the same in every regard except for the numbers "42" and "22" somehow do not mean something different then attempt to lecture me on the meanings of words.
    This all goes back to the core of your false premises. I don't accept nor expect translators or textual scholars to be infallible. I expect them to be honest and knowledgable and to have reasons for why they chose as they did. My view of the KJV translators with regard to their scholarship is no different than my view of the Lockman translators.

    I have not read all of your long.... long... dissertations on these various texts where you say doctrine or meaning is changed. If you were arguing for KJV or majority text or even TR superiority then I would probably be more interested. However, so long as you are unable or unwilling to a establish a logical, biblical, sound premise from which to operate, I am not interested in your "proof".

    You can blather on as long as you like. I will continue to go back to your false premises until you establish them in fact. I do not accept your personal biases and assumptions which eminate from your mind as a sound foundation for belief.


    To paraphrase the KJV translators: If the word of the king is translated into any other language, it remains the word of the king. Howbeit, not all translators will do their work with like skill or accuracy.

    The same goes for the 1000's of copyists that recorded the text of the Bible for over 1300 years.

    Yet you did not take into account one of the great blessings of God's Word... redundancy. No biblical Christian establishes doctrine from a single text in a single version. If you want to show me something, show me a doctrine that is taught in the KJV and not taught in the NASB or NKJV.
    You guess wrong. Doctrine is very important to me including the orthodox, historical, fundamental doctrine of the Bible... Doctrine is so important to me that I left a church a few months ago after the pastor reneged on his claim of being "only KJV" and affirmed KJVOnlyism... so much so that I led my family away from a church that we liked very much because the pastor preached from the pulpit that blacks and whites shouldn't worship together... so much so that I am pondering a 50 minute drive to church because of the doctrinal weakness of the 20-30 Baptist churches that are closer.
    You ask the wrong question based on false premises. Your logic is flawed. You have no proof nor supporting facts... therefore your conclusion is meaningless.

    You most certainly can. Establish a sound set of premises that do not contradict scripture nor history then build a case. I have said before and will say again, it would be far more convenient for me to believe KJVOnlyism. The 3 closest independent Baptist churches are KJVO. At least one of them appears to be fairly sound otherwise. However this is a major core doctrinal issue and error begets error.
    I think that the "others" can probably see quite plainly that you are not clarifying my position but rather twisting and distorting it.... so please continue. Every opportunity you give me to disprove your disingenuous efforts further weakens your credibility and by extension KJVOnlyism.

    Will K [/QB][/QUOTE]
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,369
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is your mindset. If you do not understand something, and it doesn't make sense to you, then it must be an error. So, as it stands now, you do not have any inspired Bible anywhere on this earth, neither in Hebrew, Greek, English or any other language. Your "Bible" is a mystical one that exists only in your own mind, and is different from everybody else's.

    Will, you've said the same thing for several years now, but you've failed to provide the first shred of EVIDENCE to show this is anything but guesswork.

    On the other hand, a King James Bible believer like myself, will come to the text, believe it is true even if I don't understand it, and ask God to open my understanding. I do not change the text in any way. I have the preserved, inerrant words of God, and you do not.

    Once again, this is more of your guesswork. Your mindset is, "if it aint the KJV, it's wrong". This is something you simply cannot prove. Do you really think you're fooling anybody with your unprovable statements?


    I have seen this many times. I have an answer for this apparent contradiction. It may be correct and it may not be. (I think it is) But it provides a very possible explanation that does not change the Hebrew text. You however, will refuse to accept the possible explanation which maintains the integrity of God's inerrant word, because you are operating from a position of unbelief and have already decided that the oracles of God committed to the Jews has a universal "scribal error", and if YOU can't seem to understand something, then you conclude it must be wrong. You see, you have exalted your own mind above the word of God and you now are the final authority.

    Yes, you have a whole book of excuses and "possible explanations" that carry no more weight than does the most obvious explanation-somebody goofed. To you onlyists, your MAIN excuse is that anyone who disagrees with the Onlyist myth is operating from a position of unbelief, that such people are some kind of "second-class Christian" because they don't swallow your codwallop. You're echoing the party line of Dr. Herb Evans & his toady "John Henry", who also spout a lot of opinion and guesswork which they cannot prove correct.

    I believe it's time we held your feet to the fire, Will, and ask you to *PROVE* that we MV users are something less than Christians in good standing with Jesus, and if you cannot provide such proof, to admit you were wrong & find another line to try to promote the Onlyist myth.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,369
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah, and this fact is clearly recorded in the Scriptures. This demonstrates that any form of "One Version Onlyism" is unscriptural."


    No, Archy, it demonstrates only that you have no inspired Bible and haven't considered other possible explanations.

    The first part of your above reply is typical Onlyist doggerel, completely unprovable. Let's look at your excuses now:

    Isaiah 53:7-8 with Acts 8:32-33

    This is another example that is frequently brought up to disprove an inerrant Bible and promote the multiplicity of conflicting versions in use today. In this instance an Ethiopian eunuch refers to a Messianic passage found in Isaiah and his quotation seems to match the so called Greek Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew text.

    A careful comparison of these two quotes show various shades of differences.

    Isaiah - "he is brought as a lamb"

    Acts - "he was led as a sheep"

    Isaiah - "and as a sheep before HER shearerS is dumb"

    Acts - "and like a lamb dumb before HIS shearer"

    Isaiah - "he was taken from prison and from judgment"

    Acts - "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away"

    Isaiah - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living"

    Acts - "for his life is taken from the earth"

    A simple explanation of these apparent discrepancies is that the Ethiopian was giving Philip a Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew text, and Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, recorded the conversation. The meaning is basically the same whether in Hebrew or Greek.

    So the Holy Ghost did it, eh? And the Holy Ghost didn't influence any other writings?? And it's OK for the KJV to have two versions of the same message recorded within its pages, but NOT OK for another version to have the same messages worded a little differently? Nothing like the good ole KJVO double standard, huh?

    The Ethiopian had come to Jerusalem to worship. He could most likely read Hebrew but not speak it very well. Most adults who learn a foreign language can read it long before they can speak it well. I doubt Philip spoke the Ethiopian's native tongue, so the only common spoken language between them was Greek.

    Ethiopia has quite a long history of Hebrew usage, so your premise is only a possibility, but we won't discount it entirely. Seeing as how the Ethiopian was CLEARLY READING, this language-barrier thing doesn't sound too credible. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it's completely true, and that the two men conversed in Greek, and were reading from a Greek copy of Isaiah. THE WORDING IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE MASORETIC TEXT, but the MESSAGE is still the same. So much for your EXACT WORDS concept. By your own words, it appears that the concepts of God's passing down MESSAGES AND IDEAS, rather than EXACT WORDS has more merit than you wanna admit!

    Another possibility was suggested to me by brother Schmuel. He says: "It is also very possible that the Ethiopian's Scripture version was in Geez (Ethiopic)not Greek. Remember we have "Beta Israel" (aka Falasha), Jews from Ethiopia from early times who read only Geez, and it seems not any Hebrew, although determining their language skills in 30 AD would be largely conjectural.

    The same premises for my last answer above, apply here-the inescapable fact is that, even if what the Ethiopian was reading was written in Slobbovian, THE WORDING IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OLDER HEBREW TEXTS!

    ==================================
    Jewish Enclyclopedia 1911 about the Ethiopian Jews.
    http://82.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FA/FALCK.htm
    They possess not in Hebrew, of which they are altogether ignorant, but in Ethiopic (or Geez) the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old Testament.


    See above.

    A third likely explanation is that Luke, who himself was a Greek and was used by the Holy Ghost to record these things, translated the entire event into his own language. Luke may have learned of the conversion of the Ethiopian through Philip himself, and then translated the narrative into inspired Greek. Regardless of which language or tongues were originally used, God used Luke to record these events in his native tongue. We see this same thing in Acts 21:40 - 22:21, where Paul preached a whole sermon in the Hebrew tongue, yet the sermon is translated by Luke into Greek and thus it stands in the New Testament. This one example of many found in the Holy Bible proves that a translation can be the inspired words of God.

    Once again, this is an EXCUSE, not a PROOF. The cold, hard fact is, the narrative in Acts records the Ethiopian reading from a version of Isaiah DIFFERENT from the Hebrew text of Isaiah translated into the KJV. We don't see ONE WORD within Scripture indicating the Ethiopian's version was not a correct one.

    The whole Onlyism myth consists of trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. The Scriptures provide us with clear examples of different versions of OT Scripture being used in NT times, but the Onlyist still insists upon using the "exact words as God spoke them". Seems as if GOD HIMSELF doesn't agree with this premise.

    The Hebrew word for "prison" in Isaiah 53 is # 6115 and is used only three times in the entire Old Testament. Once it is translated as "prison", another time in Psalms 107: 39 "they are brought low THROUGH OPPRESSION, affliction, and sorrow."; and the other time in Proverbs 30:16 as "the BARREN womb."

    When Christ was accused before Pilate and unfairly sentenced to death, this was indeed the hour of His humiliation and true justice was removed far off. The same general idea is expressed in both the Hebrew and the Greek translation given by the eunuch.

    Well, so much for your "exact words" assertion. Here you are, caught in a dilemma, so you waffle like Bisquick. You insist upon "exact words" quite often, saying that versions not worded like the KJV are incorrect because "they aren't God's exact words rendered into English". Caught with unassailable evidence of the use of another version, with no dissenting word from an apostle who was sent by the HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF to explain those scriptures to the reader, you now embrace the concept that the differing versions of Scripture CONVEY THE SAME GENERAL IDEA.Those are YOUR words, above.

    Those who deny that the Ethiopian is translating a loose paraphrase of the Hebrew insist that he was using the Greek Septuagint translation. There is no historical evidence to prove this, but the assertion is frequently made in the strongest of terms.

    One of the problems faced by those who assert the apostles and other Jews used a LXX version, is that the LXX frequently matches neither the Hebrew nor the Greek of the New Testament.

    One of the problems faced by the Onlyist is that the Ethiopian and Philip used another version of Isaiah besides the "traditional" Hebrew text, and he's trying to skate around this FACT because it shows his doctrine to be false.

    Even in this passage the present form of the Septuagint rendition of Isaiah 53:7-8 does not perfectly match the New Testament Greek, and is quite different from the Hebrew text.

    So, which do you say is correct? The Hebrew text, which the Ethiopian clearly wasn't using? The LXX, which you say he wasn't using? Whatever version he WAS using? The King Ezana version, perhaps?

    There are frequent examples of a free quotation being given in the New Testament that does not match either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. See for example Acts 2:16-21 where Peter says: "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..." There is a lengthy "quote" given by Peter, yet many words and whole phrases in the New Testament are not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek Septuagint versions.

    Do you KNOW that Peter was freequoting? Could he have either been reading or quoting an exact reading from memory? And although Peter was given material from Jesus which he wrote and which became Scripture, was he given authority to change existing Scripture? And if he were indeed freequoting, could he not have been expressing the IDEA, rather than the EXACT WORDS?

    The same is true in the first "quote" found in the book of Acts in chapter 1:20 where Peter again refers to the death of Judas as says: "For it is written in the book of the Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

    Yet if you look up these references in either the Hebrew or the Greek LXX, they do not perfectly match but give the same general sense either by typical fulfillment or expansion of thought.

    We also have the case in Acts 20:35 where Paul is addressing the elders of Ephesus and tells them "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
    You will search in vain for these exact words of the Lord Jesus in any of His discourses, yet several of the things He taught can rightly be summed up in this way.


    Even we lowly humans have the right to refer to what we have previously said by using different words. If I tell my child: "I don't want you to play with that boy anymore; he is too rough." and later, after I saw my child again with that other boy I tell him: "I told you not to see that kid anymore at all because he is a bully.", could I then be justly accused of contradicting myself?

    God, Who inspired every word of the Holy Bible, has every right to quote Himself by way of expansion, explanation, summation or variety of form; but you and I do not have the right to "correct, edit, or call into question" what He has said.

    Once again, Will, you evade the whole premise! Now, you're DEFENDING the use of different phraseology for the same idea! Yet, just yesterday, you were insisting that only the EXACT WORDS would do! You just won't let go of that man-made, unprovable myth known as KJVO, no matter how foolish your attempts to justify it make you look. Just face it, you cannot prove a SINGLE ARGUMENT for Onlyism. You lash out at us who can see through your facade and KNOW KJVoism is false, calling us "Christianettes" in so many words. You're STUCK, Will, & you know it. I know you'll go right on spouting your invective against those who don't believe your myth, but that's typical of the Onlyist who, lacking any evidence to support his/her myth, hopes to distract the reader from this truth by attacking the opponent. Sorry, Charlie, your bluff has been called, and you gotta face the music.
     
  10. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, the two different versions are *not* "basically the same." Being "brought" somewhere is not the same as being "led" somewhere. A male lamb is not the same thing as a female sheep. One shearer is not the same as many shearers. "He was taken from prison and from judgment" is not the same as "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away." If these sorts of differences appeared in any modern version, KJV-Onlyists would be hauling them out ad nauseam as examples of "corruptions" and "perversions" that "change God's words." But when they appear in the KJV, all sorts of mental gymnastics are used to avoid the plain and obvious fact that the KJV itself gives us two different versions of the same passage.

    Secondly, from what I've seen of KJV-Onlyist argumentation, even "basically the same" doesn't cut it. In order for it to be the "pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant word of God in English" it would have to be *exactly* the same. Any change, any deviation, no matter how small, makes it different -- and as some KJV-Onlyists are fond of saying, "things that are different are not the same."

    What does it matter *what* the original languages were? The only thing that matters is that God's exact words are correctly translated into English, right? But if "God only gave one Bible," then the English translations of Isa. 53:7-8 and Ac. 8:32-33 should be absolutely identical, word-for-word the same, regardless of what original languages they were translated from. So why does the KJV record two *different* versions of the *same* written words of God?

    But what Luke explicitly says he is recording in Ac. 8:32-33 are the exact words of the copy of Isaiah which the Ethiopian eunuch was reading aloud. And these exact words are different from the exact words of Isa. 53:7-8. The Ethiopian eunuch used a different version of Isaiah.

    God has given us not one, but *two* recorded examples of individuals reading aloud from different versions -- the different version of Isa. 53:7-8 used by the Ethiopian eunuch in Ac. 8:32-33, and the different version of Isa. 61:1-2 used by Jesus himself in Lk. 4:18-19. How anybody can read the testimony of these two witnesses to the use of different Bible versions in their own KJV's and then turn around and claim that "One-Version-Onlyism" is Scriptural is completely beyond me.
     
  11. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I usually don't play along with you but just to show you how ridiculous these "proofs" are, we'll give it a shot. Remember though, that even if these "differences" were of real substance and not your vain imaginings, they do nothing to prove your conclusion.
    Are you saying that these versions or mss do not use the title "Lord Jesus Christ"? Are you saying that they deny Him this title? That seems to be what you are inferring... so if we can cite other passages where the complete title is used of Christ your argument will be shown false. Will you accept such proof? Will you acknowledge the fact that MV's call Jesus God at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 while the KJV does not?

    Do you have an Adonai who is not Theos? Exactly what doctrine or meaning do you think this effects?

    They appear to be in error. Of course this does not prove that they deny Christ's sovereignty.

    That was pretty easy.

    "Hebrews 3
    6but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. (ESV)"

    Please explain which biblical doctrine is put at risk by this translation and textual choice. Especially when the scripture is taken in its complete context (taking things out of context seems to be a favorite KJVO tactic):

    "14For we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (ESV)"

    Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ...purge YOUR conscience from dead works..."

    Again, what doctrine do you think this undermines? I have no problem associating myself with the object of the writer of Hebrews whether he said "your" or "our". In either case, I recognize that it means "me".

    Again, it appears like these translations are in error... and again, what core Christian doctrine do you think is at stake with this omission?


    "22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart,
    23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. (NASB)"

    I am not confused by the meaning of this passage nor its teaching that we are to love the brethren with a pure, sincere heart. Maybe your problem isn't so much with versions as it is with recognizing equality of substance. Again, what doctrine or truth or teaching do you think is at stake here?

    When these say He suffered, we infer that He died. When the others say He died, we recognize from cross reference that He suffered. Once again, what doctrine or truth are you saying is put at risk by this variant and the resulting differences in versions?

    So earlier you objected because some versions said "our" instead of "your" but now you object because some versions say "you" rather than "us". Once again, you assume your conclusion then declare anything contrary to your conclusion to be false without reason.

    Which of the versions follows Vaticanus at 1 Peter 5:3?

    So you think the command to "shepherd" does not carry the unavoidable connotation of "taking the oversight"? If so, please give us an accurate definition of a shepherd that does not take oversight.

    The only thing ridiculous here is your obvious bias. This verse has to do with the revelation of judgment against the physical world and the works therein.

    Of course the next phrase in verse 11 provides the context for the works being "laid bare", "11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?"

    Destroyed? Yes. In what way? See verse 10 and verse 12, by fire and heat.

    Boy this is tiresome.... Will, what doctrine is at stake with this variant?

    Yes indeed. You have cited Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, NIV, NASB, ISV, and a whole bunch of other things as authoritative... when they agree with your conclusion.

    And in all of your meaningless rambling, you have yet to show a doctrinal difference or in reality even a significant difference in a single passage of scripture.
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,369
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Will, you've done umpteen of these comparisons lists, and all they prove is that the various English bvs differ among themselves. They DO NOT prove one wrong and the other right.

    We all know that different translators made different choices when wording their works, that many Greek and Hebrew words have multiple meanings, same as many English words do, and without any help from the context, nor having any help from other uses of the same word in other passages, the translator must make his/her selection based upon what best fits the overall flow of the words in English. Just because some translator made such a choice different from that of the KJV does NOT make his/her work corrupt.An example: the KJV renders the Hebrew "re'em" as "unicorn", while several modern versions render it "wild bull".

    We cannot simply dismiss the AV's saying "unicorn" because the people of that time believed unicorns existed. But in the light of these times, it would be fallacious for any translator to use "unicorn" since no proof of its existence has been found.

    As for manuscript differences, the argument over which ones are authentic or "official" has been going on for over a hundred years, and is nowhere close to being solved. Since God has apparently chosen not to have preserved the originals, one must stop and think WHY He has allowed these differing mss to exist. I believe He means for us to use them ALL. I know it's a matter of pure conjecture, but I believe that, had the AV translators had access to all the mss available today, and had use of the high-speed copiers and comminications networks we now have, they would have given equal weight to those mss which today's Onlyists claim are corrupt. Their work would've been much more eclectic than it was. As you know, they made use of all materials available to them, including the earlier English versions.

    Once again, we see no EVIDENCE to lend any credence to the Onlyism myth.
     
  13. Anti-Alexandrian

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You said a mouth full A-A. Will should definitely take heed to this verse. We keep braying (pounding, grounding) KJVOnlyism with the pestle of truth in the mortar of factual scripture and history... yet he maintains the foolishness of KJVOnlyism.

    Good verse.
     
  15. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Hank, to answer a couple of the points you raised:

    Hank>>>Briefly and the most important : You do not have a “perfect” English Bible and as many times as you say so, you have been reminded of the several revisions to the original edition of the 1611 KJV, the earliest of which was 1613.... So, we ask which revision is the "perfect" Word(s) of God since according to the KJVO definiton of "perfect" "things which are different are not the same".


    Hank, I KNOW you have no perfect, inerrant, inspired Bible, but you likewise insist the KJB only position is flawed because of "revisions". Sorry, Hank, but changes in spelling and the correction of printing errors does not constitute a "revision" but a corrected edition.

    Your modern versions are DELIBERATE changes made in both the text and the wording of thousands of words and they differ from edition to edition INTENTIONALLY.

    The "perfect" Bible of the KJB left the hands of the translators in 1611 and due to the massive work and the conditions of the printing process back then, several printing errors accidentally occured in the English editions, which were soon corrected.

    But, the underlying text has never changed, and even the American Bible Society testified to this. If "printing errors" disqualifies a Bible version from being God's preserved words, then you have no perfect nasb, niv, nkjv etc. either, because they all have from time to time printing errors, even with today's advanced technology.

    You are straining at gnats and stumbling over a pebble. The whole inspiration and inerrancy of the King James Bible or even of the Bible in any version was not an issue until the German critics appeared on the scene and began to question and doubt many doctrines and passages in the KJB texts. Things like Ahaziah being both 22 and 42. So, when "Christian leaders" couldn't answer such apparent contradictions, they fell back on the proverbial "only the originals were inspired" arguments we hear so much from Christians today.

    God knew this whole thing would happen and for those who do not believe the promises of God nor in the existence of an inspired, inerrant Bible, He hands them over to their own delusions to stumple over minor printing errors in the KJB editions and apparent contradictions like the differing ages recorded for Ahaziah.

    You then end up in your present ludicrous position of General Message Only found in a multitude of drastically differing and contradictory bible versions, trying to maintain your precarious balance of somehow believing they are all Probably Close Enuf, and God has failed to preserve His wordS till heaven and earth pass away.


    As for the so called Septuagint, I suggest you start a separate topic on this if you like. I believe the existence of a complete, authoritative Pre-Christian LXX is a myth on the level of evolution - believed by many with no sound evidence.

    Hank, I know the KJB has some minority readings, but as I said, the modern versions have at least 20 for every one found in the KJB, and these don't seem to bother you, but you think they are wrong when found in the KJB.

    One of my purposes for posting the study on Sinaiticus-Vaticanus is to show how utterly corrupt and unreliable they are as a textual guides, yet many present day Christians have been deceived into thinking they are "reliable" and their bible versions are based on these two "oldest and most reliable" pieces of trash.


    I believe I have an inspired, inerrant Bible and I can hold it in my hands and recommend it to others as the word of God. You, and Larry, Bob, Scott, Archangel etc. do not, in spite of all your mental gymnastics and pious language. This is patently obvious to those who have eyes to see.

    Here is a little something more concerning the printing errors.

    QUESTION:
     
    Dear Pastor Reagan, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sending you this E-Mail as I need some help!!!!
     
    A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24v7.
     
    1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."
     
    Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."
     
    Penfold then asks in light of this, which one is the infallible word of God?
     
    I have a copy of your article entitled  The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite.  Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.
     
    Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.
    Yours in Christ
     
     
    ANSWER from Brother Reagan:
     
    Brother H,
     
    Thank you for your letter.  I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.  Perhaps you could tell me a little about yourself.  I don't think I have ever corresponded with you before.
     
    Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7 shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible.  It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense.  However, I will do so for those who need it.
     
    Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language.  Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors.  If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.
     
    The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7 is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth.  First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.
     
    1.  It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not."  The Hebrew Massoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not".  I also checked several modern translations.  They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text. 
     
    2.  It is not a translation problem.  There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative.  In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
     
    3.  It is not a doctrinal error.  One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct.  One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalm 119:161.  This is not something to lose our religion over.  Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible.  Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7 example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.
     
    What is it then?  It is a printing error.  Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type.  I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes.  These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
     
    A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something.  However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered.  This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing!  So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators. 
     
    Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues.  I actually feel sorry for people like that.
     
    NOTE: You can study this question further in the The Myth of Early Revisions.
     
     By David F. Reagan
     
  16. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Archy, you posted: "First of all, the two different versions are *not* "basically the same." Being "brought" somewhere is not the same as being "led" somewhere. A male lamb is not the same thing as a female sheep. One shearer is not the same as many shearers. "He was taken from prison and from judgment" is not the same as "in his humiliation his judgment was taken away."

    Arch, you are straining at gnats again. "He was taken from prison" consider, He never literally was in prison, was He? Christ was placed under arrest but He was never in prison. He who should have been exalted to the throne was placed under arrest, mocked and spit on. This was His "humiliation". I have no problem spiritually connecting the two ideas.

    Will
     
  17. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scott posts: "Are you saying that these versions or mss do not use the title "Lord Jesus Christ"? Are you saying that they deny Him this title? That seems to be what you are inferring... so if we can cite other passages where the complete title is used of Christ your argument will be shown false. Will you accept such proof? Will you acknowledge the fact that MV's call Jesus God at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 while the KJV does not?"

    Scott, your position is that of General Message Close Enuf Only. If a correct doctrine is found SOMEWHERE in a version, then it must be OK, even if that particular doctrine is contradicted in other places in that particular version. You do not believe God preserved all His words in any version out there.

    As for your time worn complaint about Titus and 2 Peter, you follow the flawed logic of people like James White, and you are wrong in your assumptions. The KJB is actually far more accurate in Titus 2:13 than your new versions.

    Also your mindset of unbelief shows in thinking the different ages of 22 and 42 are "undeniable and irreconcilable error" in spite of the fact that all Hebrew texts read this way.

    There is a good explanation for this apparent contradiction.

    Part of what I was showing in the "Science" posts is how contradictory Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are and how your modern noted scholars can't agree among themselves and keep on changing their Greek texts, not on "evidence", but on a whim.

    Will
     
  18. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Roby, you posted: "Will, you've done umpteen of these comparisons lists, and all they prove is that the various English bvs differ among themselves. They DO NOT prove one wrong and the other right."

    Roby, you are correct in that they do not prove one is right and one is wrong. What they do prove is that obviously they can't ALL be right at the same time. God did not inspire two or three different texts which contradict each other at the same time. One of them is true and the other is false, or we are left with your position that nobody knows for sure and that is where Satan want you to be. "Yea, hath God said...?"

    We know that you personally do not believe any Bible is the inspired word of God. Do you deny this? Remember, Roby, I have saved several of your past statements from other clubs.

    Will K
     
  19. Will J. Kinney

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They Dare Call This the Science of Textual Criticism - Jude to Revelation - the end of this study.

    At the very least, you can safely conclude that those noted scholars who refer to textual criticism as a "science" are bufoons trying to sound religious while foisting confusion and nonsense on the Christian church.

    The Book of Jude

    James White, a well known critic of the King James Bible, in his book The KJV Controversy, accuses the KJB of following "inferior texts" in the book of Jude. Please see my response to his fallacious arguments in this article I wrote.

    http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jude4.html

    Jude 5 "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."

    This is clearly a reference to God delivering the Israelites out of Egypt as recorded in the Old Testament. THE LORD is the reading found in the Majority of texts as well as Sinaiticus. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, and NRSV. However Vaticanus actually says that it was JESUS who saved the people out of the land of Egypt and so does the ESV!

    The Book of the Revelation

    This book has more textual variants than any other book in the New Testament, and this fact is often illustrated in the multiplicity of differing bible versions that result from following different texts or sometimes in how the same texts are translated. I will briefly mention just a few examples.

    Revelation 15:3 "...Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of SAINTS."

    "King of saints" is found in the KJB, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, the Third Millenium Version, the Spanish Reina Valera, and Luther's German translation.

    The NIV, ASV, RV, and RSV all follow different texts and say: "King OF THE AGES", while the NASB, ESV, and ISV follow yet other texts and have: "King OF THE NATIONS".

    Some of the same texts that split between "ages" and "nations" also read "stone" in Revelation 15:6. Where the KJB, NIV, ESV, and NASB read of seven angels clothed in pure and white LINEN, the RV and ASV say they were arrayed in STONE, pure and bright!

    Revelation 21:3 "...Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, AND BE THEIR GOD."

    "and be their God" is found in many manuscripts and is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV, and the ISV. However Sinaiticus omits this reading and so do the RSV, NRSV, and the NASB. The former Nestle-Aland texts omitted these words, but now they have put them back in the text.

    Let's close this study with a look at the very last verse in the Holy Bible. In the King James Bible, as well as the NKJV, Young's, Websters, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV21, and the Third Millenium Bible we read: "The grace of OUR Lord Jesus CHRIST be with YOU ALL. Amen."

    The texts followed by many modern versions omit the words "our", "Christ", and "you all", but they don't even agree among themselves.

    Instead of " with you all", the Alexandrinus says simply "with all" and so read the NASB and the ESV. But Sinaiticus reads "with the saints" and so read the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the ISV. The NIV also adopts this reading but paraphrases it as "with God's people".

    Those who exalt the Sinaiticus Greek manuscript as being one of the most reliable may be surprised to know of some of its readings in the book of Revelation. In 10:1 instead of "a rainbow was upon his head" Sinaiticus has "hair" was on his head. In 7:4 instead of 144,000 it reads 140,000 and in 14:3 instead of 144,000 it has 141,000. Instead of "the former things are passed away" in 21:4 Sinaiticus has "the sheep are passed away" and in 21:5 instead of "I make all things new" Sinaticus says "I make all things empty"

    It is my hope that this study has made you aware that "the science of textual criticism" is a misnomer and a farce. I believe God has been faithful to fulfill His promises to preserve His complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words in a Book we can actually hold in our hands, read, memorize, and believe with all our hearts.

    Many scholars today tell us they are attempting to reconstruct as closely as possible the text of the New Testament by rummaging through the various textual readings and trying to put together what God originally wrote. It is my sincere belief that God has already providentially "worked through" this whole process by means of the translators of the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Afterall, only He knows for sure which readings are His and which are not.

    The Bible believer, and by that I mean one who believes every word of God's written word that he holds in his hands, and makes no attempt to "correct" it, or doubt its text, - the Bible believer - first looks to Almighty God to have fulfilled His promises that heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of those thousands like me who believe God has done this in the Authorized King James Bible.

    May the God and Father of our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be pleased to grant you like precious faith.

    Will Kinney
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,369
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
    Roby, you posted: "Will, you've done umpteen of these comparisons lists, and all they prove is that the various English bvs differ among themselves. They DO NOT prove one wrong and the other right."

    Roby, you are correct in that they do not prove one is right and one is wrong. What they do prove is that obviously they can't ALL be right at the same time. God did not inspire two or three different texts which contradict each other at the same time. One of them is true and the other is false, or we are left with your position that nobody knows for sure and that is where Satan want you to be. "Yea, hath God said...?"

    So you arbitrarily choose the most archaic one of the bunch, without one blip of evidence proving it right and/or the others wrong, placing you in the position of, "Yea, hath Will said...". And, given as how many accounts of the same events each differ from one another IN THE SAME VERSION(Remember the differences between Kings & Chronicles about Jehoiachim and Jehoiachin, and the four differing accounts among the Four Gospels. This can be found right within the KJV!)I believe God does SO allow differing texts to exist. Again, you fail to take into account that if God wanted all the Scriptures to be in one rigid version, HE WOULD'VE PRESERVED THE AUTOGRAPHS! The work of God id right before your eyes, but you choose to ignore it in favor of a half-baked man-made false doctrine that originated from a book by a leader of a known false church.

    We know that you personally do not believe any Bible is the inspired word of God. Do you deny this? Remember, Roby, I have saved several of your past statements from other clubs.

    I'm not about to deny it. I believe God's word as He gave it was perfect; man's handling of it is not. Several others here have PROVEN some errors and poor translations in the KJV as have I also. And I've readily admitted to having seen errors in some MVs, for example where the NIV says "sinful nature" while the KJV and some others say, "flesh", the Greek word here is 'sarx', which indeed means, "flesh".

    You're STILL trying to drive square pegs into round holes by making excuses for the goofs in the KJV. All you've put forth are POSSIBILITIES, which are rather far-fetched when measured against the most likely cause: someone made a human error.

    And you've admitted yourself that you believe the KJV right & the others wrong by FAITH.(Remember, I can bring up many of YOUR posts from the last 3 years.) We non-Onlyists believe as we do by faith also-faith in an ALMIGHTY God who can present His word AS HE CHOOSES, completely independent from any silly notions of man as to how man thinks He should present it.

    Once again, Will, you present statements with absolutely no PROOF of their veracity.
     
Loading...