If you use modern versions
Kjasowen
I am just curious to wonder if you are aware of my question or not, just
discuss with this question.
If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you defend the
apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
NobleExile
>Date: Fri, 08 October 1999 07:52 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>
>Hello everyone:
>
>I am just curious to wonder if you are aware of my question or not, just
>discuss with this question.
>
>If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you defend the
>apostates who produced them
Would you please be MUCH more specific? Offer your definition of "apostate'
asnd then give direct evidence that each and every member of the translation
committess for each and every 'modern version' fits the definition.
>reject Christians who defend the KJV?
Please evidence a Christian being 'rejected' because of their 'defense' of the
KJV.
=========================
- Nobile+Exile -
'Carpe diem, quam minimum
credula poetero'
mljr1
"one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible. KJV,
NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual. It
did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
now have. I love the KJV though.
Let this argument end.
Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> Hello everyone:
>
> I am just curious to wonder if you are aware of my question or not, just
> discuss with this question.
>
> If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you defend
the
> apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
Roger Jefferson
RJ
Kjasowen wrote in message <19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Word Boy
wrote:
>In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual. It
>did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
>now have. I love the KJV though.
>
>Let this argument end.
Let this trashing of King James end! For any who wish to see an
answer to the charge that King James was homosexual, see:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm
Word Boy
--Seach the Scriptures because, "It is written again"!
Acts 17:11,Matthew 4:7
vernon o
mljr1 <ml...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uHPfl9qE$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa03...
> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to
the
> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>
> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible.
KJV,
> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>
> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
It
> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
> now have. I love the KJV though.
>
> Let this argument end.
>
> Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Kjasowen
>Offer your definition of "apostate'
Kjasowen
The definition of "apostate" is that a person who entirely forsakes his
religion, faith or principles or one who turns away from the true Christian
faith to follow false teachings.
>NobleExile
>asnd then give direct evidence that each and every member of the translation
>committess for each and every 'modern version' fits the definition.
Kjasowen
Westcott and Hort (produced the ERV in 1881) were unbelievers, closet
catholics, communists and
socialists, etc. Westcott believed in the Haunted House where the ghosts
resided.
1. Westcott and Hort denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
2. Westcott and Hort denied that Heaven is a place.
3. Westcott and Hort believed in the EVOLUTION
4. Westcott and Hort denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. and more...
In our current lifetime, there are more apostates who support modern versions.
I give you some examples of the "today" apostates: Bruce Metzger is a textual
scholar and was editor of the United Bible Society (UBS). I learned that he was
an unbeliever because he denied the Bible authorship, miracles, history, etc.
Kurt Aland was co-editor of the Nestle-Aland Greek text. He denied the verbal
inspiration and rejected the authoritative canon of Scripture.
>NobleExile
>>reject Christians who defend the KJV?
>
>Please evidence a Christian being 'rejected' because of their 'defense' of
>the
>KJV.
Kjasowen
I don't know if you watch the John Ankerberg show on TV. I watched it by
myself. I was so shocked that the apostates were there to criticize the
Christians who defend the KJV. The reason for this is that John invited wrong
persons who defend the KJV because of the controversy between them as 2 groups
of the KJV defenders. John is very intelligent to destroy the Christians'
testimony about their defense of the KJV. There was very awful debates.
That's how they rejected the Christian who defend the KJV.
vernon o
you have any more comedy routines.
The most one can say "against" Westcott & Hort is that they were influenced
by Jesuit training. The primary influence being that the average person
does not have the capability of understanding scripture without the help of
an enlightened person.
Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991010195000...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
vernon o
1. KJV only = stupid
2. KJV is bad = stupid
Graeme Hunt <invi...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:380d27f6...@news.tga.ihug.co.nz...
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 16:02:45 -0700, "vernon o"
> <ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
>
> >It exists because of stupidity such as you just posted.
> >
> >mljr1 <ml...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:uHPfl9qE$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa03...
> >> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to
> >the
> >> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The
KJV
> >> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
> >>
>
> I did not see the beginning of this thread, so apologies of I have
> taken the wrong meaning out of this. Am I to assume that someone is
> contending that the KJV is the only version to use?
>
> I have seen this said a lot lately and can't understand why. The KJV
> is a version, not the original autograph. Why, for example, would the
> KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
> MSS.
>
> One gets the impression that there are still some who go along with
> the old saying that "the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, so
> it is good enough for me."
>
> Actually, the KJV is a very poor translation in many areas, even
> though it has its good points.
>
> Graeme Hunt
> invi...@ihug.co.nz
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~invictus
Graeme Hunt
Kjasowen
>Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
Kjasowen
A commentary is for your Bible study, however please be careful because there
are some scholars that are Catholics, Methodist or Fundamentalists or cults,
wrote in one commentary. This could lead to the confusion reflecting these
scholars' belief. I found wrong responses from one of them. An example of Luke
23:45 is that some scholars referred this verse to the eclipse, which
contradicted with the passover during the FULL moon.
Some commentaries help you to understand what the Bible said. I have about 6
different commentaries. I used them for my Bible study.
These modern versions that are different are not the same. Which Bible version
is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
Kjasowen
>I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
>"one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
>is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
Kjasowen
The KJV derived from the Greek, Hebrews and Aramic manuscripts. I speak English
or ASL only, however I have a foreign dictionary like Strong's concordance for
my study on Greek NT and Hebrews OT. The accurate Bible for English people is
the KJV. Do the Germans have the accurate Bible? Do Russians have the accurate
Bible? Do Italians have the accurate Bible? And so on. Yes, they have their
inspired, preserved Bibles according to Romans 16:26. I don't believe the KJV
for all foreign people who must read the English language. These foreginers
have their accurate Bible translations
>mljr1
>Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible. KJV,
>NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
Kjasowen
These modern versions that are different are not the same. NIV has 6500 change,
addition and omission; NASB has 4000; New King James Version has 2000. Which
Bible version is the Word of God?
>mljr1
>I love the KJV though.
>
Kjasowen
That's excellent! :-)
>mljr1
>Let this argument end.
Kjasowen
The argument is necessary because we have to protect our religious freedom.
NobleExile
>Date: Sun, 10 October 1999 08:56 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991010205643...@ng-ci1.aol.com>
> I speak English
>or ASL only
Cool! English is my primary, but ASL is my primary receptive language.
Graeme Hunt
> Which Bible version
>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
Aaramaic in some portions.
Archangel
Erasmus, the Roman Catholic monk who prepared the Greek text behind
the TR/ KJV, wrote a scholarly treatise defending the doctrine of
transubstantiation and considered Anabaptists to be evil. Would that
make him an "apostate?"
Many of the KJV translators were high church Anglicans who believed in
infant baptism, candles and incense in worship, the apostolic
succession of bishops in an episcopal system of church government, and
the reading of the Apocrypha in public worship. Would that make them
"apostates?"
Archangel
Archangel
>>mljr1
>>I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
>>"one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
>>is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>
>Kjasowen
>The KJV derived from the Greek, Hebrews and Aramic manuscripts. I speak English
>or ASL only, however I have a foreign dictionary like Strong's concordance for
>my study on Greek NT and Hebrews OT. The accurate Bible for English people is
>the KJV.
Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
people. The KJV is accurate in many places, less accurate in others,
and in error in others. I would recommend reading several different
translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
>Do the Germans have the accurate Bible? Do Russians have the accurate
>Bible? Do Italians have the accurate Bible? And so on. Yes, they have their
>inspired, preserved Bibles according to Romans 16:26. I don't believe the KJV
>for all foreign people who must read the English language. These foreginers
>have their accurate Bible translations
>
>>mljr1
>>Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible. KJV,
>>NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>
>Kjasowen
>These modern versions that are different are not the same. NIV has 6500 change,
>addition and omission; NASB has 4000; New King James Version has 2000. Which
>Bible version is the Word of God?
I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
I would think that ANY version which correctly and faithfully
translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
Archangel
Archangel
>>Roger Jefferson
>>Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
>
>Kjasowen
>A commentary is for your Bible study, however please be careful because there
>are some scholars that are Catholics, Methodist or Fundamentalists or cults,
>wrote in one commentary. This could lead to the confusion reflecting these
>scholars' belief. I found wrong responses from one of them. An example of Luke
>23:45 is that some scholars referred this verse to the eclipse, which
>contradicted with the passover during the FULL moon.
Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
>
>Some commentaries help you to understand what the Bible said. I have about 6
>different commentaries. I used them for my Bible study.
>
>These modern versions that are different are not the same. Which Bible version
>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
the 1769 KJV?
Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
>> Which Bible version
>>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>
>None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
>the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
>Aaramaic in some portions.
I would say that English translations are also the inspired Word of
God, but in a DERIVATIVE sense. The Scriptures as given in the
original languages are inspired in a PRIMARY sense, and all English
translations must be checked against the Greek and Hebrew text for
accuracy.
Archangel
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
And they all come up with different translations, so who is correct?
Take your pick!
The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
the original text. I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
they are not divinely inspired.
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
>and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
>hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
>
True in that it conveys the original text as near as possible to its
original meaning. However, the fact remains that for serious study of
the Word a refernce to the original text is essential.
Archangel
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:12:04 GMT, nos...@sympatico.ca (Archangel)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:33:48 GMT, invi...@ihug.co.nz (Graeme Hunt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which Bible version
>>>>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>>>
>>>None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
>>>the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
>>>Aaramaic in some portions.
>>
>>I would say that English translations are also the inspired Word of
>>God, but in a DERIVATIVE sense. The Scriptures as given in the
>>original languages are inspired in a PRIMARY sense, and all English
>>translations must be checked against the Greek and Hebrew text for
>>accuracy.
>
>And they all come up with different translations, so who is correct?
>Take your pick!
Translations may differ in wording, yet convey the same meaning.
>
>The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
>the original text.
Agreed.
>I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
>they are not divinely inspired.
True, inspiration doesn't extend to the translation process; yet
because translations are derived from inspired originals, they
maintain a degree of derivative inspiration.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 03:05:09 GMT, nos...@sympatico.ca (Archangel)
>wrote:
>
>>Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
>>and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
>>hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
>>
>
>True in that it conveys the original text as near as possible to its
>original meaning. However, the fact remains that for serious study of
>the Word a refernce to the original text is essential.
Agreed.
Archangel
David Rea
mljr1 wrote:
> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the same.
(the New KJV say that the path of salvation is diffucult, the KJV says it is
narrow) All of us, who are looking at this objectivly, would agree that these
two word MEAN tow diferent things!
So, if they are diferent, then one is wrong - Which one?
Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
>
>
> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
Of what, & acording to whom?
The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your "portrait" on
that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that agree
with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
How do you decide this?
> is a Bible. KJV,
> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>
> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
> It
> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
> now have.
Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did. They had access to many
of the mss used in todays versions, or copies of them. Archangle made an
argument on this newsgroup that the minority mss were translated & copies were
made all through christian history. The KJV translators rejected this type of
text.
Archangel wrote:
"The following late minuscules have the same
Alexandrian text-type as these early papyri and codices: 33 (9th C.);
81 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (1044 AD); 104 in Acts, Paulines,
and Catholics (1087 AD); 326 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (12th
C.); 579 in the Gospels (13th C.); 892 in the Gospels (9th C.); 1006
in Revelation (11th C.); 1175 (11th C.); 1611 in Revelation (12th C.);
1241 in the Gospels (12th C.); 1243 (11th C.); 1739 in the Paulines
and Catholics (10th C.); 1854 in Revelation (11th C.); 2053 in
Revelation (13th C.); 2062 (13th C.); 2067 (13th C.); 2344 in
Revelation (11th C.); 2474 (14th C.) So the texts WERE used, copied,
and preserved. "
So, why did the KJV translators reject these texts?
> I love the KJV though.
>
> Let this argument end.
The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of the
situation.
>
>
> Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> > Hello everyone:
> >
> > I am just curious to wonder if you are aware of my question or not, just
> > discuss with this question.
> >
> > If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you defend
> the
> > apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
David Rea
> I did not see the beginning of this thread, so apologies of I have
> taken the wrong meaning out of this. Am I to assume that someone is
> contending that the KJV is the only version to use?
>
Many are, for good reason.
> I have seen this said a lot lately and can't understand why.
Becuase the manuscripts used for the KJV are differnent than the manuscripts
(mss) used for all of the other "new" bibles. The new bibles use a few mss that
do not even agree with themselves. The KJV uses the majority of the mss that all
agree. The minority mss (aka alexandian text type) removes many verses & subtly
alters doctrin. Slowly these verson change (they already have a "gender neutral"
version of the NIV. It was relesed in the UK. On one side, the KJV people reject
the minority because they say it is corupt. (I belive this) On the other, the
proponets of the "new" version argue that thier versions are easier to read & are
based on texts that are older & beter.
It is a big debate becasue it is over the very Word of God & what it is. I argue
that God's word is singular, it is not found in conflicting mss & conflicting
versions of the bible. God is NOT the author of confusion! Satan is.
God Bless you.
DR
> The KJV
> is a version, not the original autograph. Why, for example, would the
> KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
> MSS.
>
> One gets the impression that there are still some who go along with
> the old saying that "the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, so
> it is good enough for me."
>
> Actually, the KJV is a very poor translation in many areas, even
> though it has its good points.
>
David Rea
The New Bibles are based on corrupted mss that came from a town know for its
carnal & sinful culture - alexandrea, egypt. Many of the so called best mss
can be traced back to a world renowned school in this town. It gave birth to
the modern day occult, it also gave birth to the modern day bible version.
the following are a few verses to look up in the NIV & KJV. You will see that
if you read the NIV - you may miss a few things.....
Matt. 18:11 salvation! (OMITED)
Acts 8:37 Baptism! (OMITED)
Matt. 17:21 Advice for spiritual warfare FROM JESUS! (you don't want to miss
this) (OMITED)
I Cor. 7:5 More advice re: fasting, prayer & protecting youself from
satan. (KEY PARTS OMITED)
Why not read them as commentaries? You may get shorted! Literaly.
Is it not odd that refrences to fasting seem to be struck from verses talking
about spiritual warfare? It almost seems as if someone wanted this done for
some unknown reason....Who would want such a thing done?.....
Roger Jefferson wrote:
> Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
> RJ
>
> Kjasowen wrote in message <19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
David Rea
Graeme Hunt wrote:
> On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> > Which Bible version
> >is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>
> None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
> the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
> Aaramaic in some portions.
>
> Graeme Hunt
> invi...@ihug.co.nz
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~invictus
You do know that the originals do not exist, right?
All of the originals are long lost/destroyed. What we have today are
copies of copies of copies. This is the basis for the text translations
come from. If the originals are inspired, but copies are not, then we have
NO Bible!!!!!
This, however, is contrary to what the Bible says. The Bible says God
will PRESERVE His Word. Rejecting the authority of the Bible (the
preservation of it) is the first step toward rejecting the bible itself.
You may not belive this, but it is true.
God inspired the writing of the Bible, & God preserved this inspired work.
If this is not so, your Bible is basicaly worthless.
It is important to know that there are NO originals! They are long gone!
Beliving that only the originals were inspired is a VERY dangerous path to
walk down!
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On 11 Oct 1999 00:56:43 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> >>mljr1
> >>I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
> >>"one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
> >>is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >The KJV derived from the Greek, Hebrews and Aramic manuscripts. I speak English
> >or ASL only, however I have a foreign dictionary like Strong's concordance for
> >my study on Greek NT and Hebrews OT. The accurate Bible for English people is
> >the KJV.
>
> Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
> people.
It is accurate to the text it was translated from.
> The KJV is accurate in many places, less accurate in others,
> and in error in others. I would recommend reading several different
> translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
> and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
>
> >Do the Germans have the accurate Bible? Do Russians have the accurate
> >Bible? Do Italians have the accurate Bible? And so on. Yes, they have their
> >inspired, preserved Bibles according to Romans 16:26. I don't believe the KJV
> >for all foreign people who must read the English language. These foreginers
> >have their accurate Bible translations
> >
> >>mljr1
> >>Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible. KJV,
> >>NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >These modern versions that are different are not the same. NIV has 6500 change,
> >addition and omission; NASB has 4000; New King James Version has 2000. Which
> >Bible version is the Word of God?
>
> I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
> revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
> revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
> different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
The changes were for such things as spelling (no standardized spelling existed in
the days the KJV was writen. In addition printing was new, & many printing errors
were made. These changes were not changes in meanings of words, or structures of
verses, ect. I am sure that you would know this Archangel! You seem to be very on
top of this!
> I would think that ANY version which correctly and faithfully
> translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
>
Which
Greek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Would you favor translating every verse in the mss "B" & using that as a Bible? If
not why? Same question for Aleph - all three version of it...
> Archangel
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> >>Roger Jefferson
> >>Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >A commentary is for your Bible study, however please be careful because there
> >are some scholars that are Catholics, Methodist or Fundamentalists or cults,
> >wrote in one commentary. This could lead to the confusion reflecting these
> >scholars' belief. I found wrong responses from one of them. An example of Luke
> >23:45 is that some scholars referred this verse to the eclipse, which
> >contradicted with the passover during the FULL moon.
>
> Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
> 10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
>
> >
> >Some commentaries help you to understand what the Bible said. I have about 6
> >different commentaries. I used them for my Bible study.
> >
> >These modern versions that are different are not the same. Which Bible version
> >is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>
> The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
> Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
> the 1769 KJV?
How about this, you list the verses in these two that differ! Then the answer will
become evident.
>
>
> Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
> and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
> hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
>
> Archangel
David Rea
vernon o wrote:
> Gee, I didn't know they had anti W&H comic books out. That's hilarious. Do
> you have any more comedy routines.
>
> The most one can say "against" Westcott & Hort is that they were influenced
> by Jesuit training. The primary influence being that the average person
> does not have the capability of understanding scripture without the help of
> an enlightened person.
There is alot of that going around today!!!
Why do people think that they, with the help of God, cannot understand the KJV?
Why do we have to dilute & modify the Word of God under the banner of making it
easy to understand?
Does not the Bible say it is imposible for us to understand the Bible w/o Gods
help?
I saw a add for an oil company. It had a Knight wearing armor & the copy used
that "old" english, thee's & thou's to give it the feel of the midle ages. I
felt like calling the oil company & telling them to fire thier add agency
because no one would be able to read & understand thier add!! (this is of course
not true) I found it funny to see this old archaic language used in a media that
REQUIRES easy reading - A mag. add!!!
PEOPLE ARE NOT A STUPID AS THE ENLIGHTENED WOULD LIKE TO THINK.
>
>
> Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991010195000...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> > >NobleExile
> > >>reject Christians who defend the KJV?
> > >
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:33:48 GMT, invi...@ihug.co.nz (Graeme Hunt)
> wrote:
>
> >On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >
> >> Which Bible version
> >>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
> >
> >None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
> >the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
> >Aaramaic in some portions.
>
> I would say that English translations are also the inspired Word of
> God, but in a DERIVATIVE sense. The Scriptures as given in the
> original languages are inspired in a PRIMARY sense,
>
Where is the basis for this in scripture? I know God said he would preserve
the scripture. I know of nothing that talks about two types of Bibles! Now,
you did not just make this up - did you?
> Archangel
David Rea
> >>accuracy.
> >
> >And they all come up with different translations, so who is correct?
> >Take your pick!
>
> Translations may differ in wording, yet convey the same meaning.
>
Wrong! I have found many places where they DO NOT mean the same thing.
> >
> >The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
> >the original text.
>
> Agreed.
>
So, there is NO inspired Word of God in writing ANYWHERE TODAY!!!????
The mss we use today, are not "original", they are copies of copies, of
copies....
> >I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
> >they are not divinely inspired.
>
> True, inspiration doesn't extend to the translation process; yet
> because translations are derived from inspired originals
No, translations comes from inspired copies of copies of copies of
originals... You know that we do not have the "originals" if we did thier
would be no debate!! We would have ONE copy of each book, & that would be the
text used to translate from. WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS!!!!
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>> I did not see the beginning of this thread, so apologies of I have
>> taken the wrong meaning out of this. Am I to assume that someone is
>> contending that the KJV is the only version to use?
>>
>
>Many are, for good reason.
>
>> I have seen this said a lot lately and can't understand why.
>
>Becuase the manuscripts used for the KJV are differnent than the manuscripts
>(mss) used for all of the other "new" bibles. The new bibles use a few mss that
>do not even agree with themselves. The KJV uses the majority of the mss that all
>agree.
Mr. Rea is not quite correct in his facts here. (1) ALL the extant
Greek MSS of the NT agree completely in roughly 90% of readings. The
remaining 10% or so have textual variants, none of which has any
significant impact on any key Christian doctrine. (2) The TR / KJV
generally, BUT NOT ALWAYS, follows the readings found in the majority
of Greek MSS (which, BTW, do NOT "all agree," as there are significant
variations within this majority.) In over 1500 places the TR / KJV
follows the readings found in the minority of MSS, and in some places
(e.g., "book of life" in Rev. 22:19) it follows readings not found in
ANY Greek MS. One wonders why it's all right for the TR / KJV to
follow minority readings, but not all right for modern Greek NT texts
/ English translations to do the same.
>The minority mss (aka alexandian text type) removes many verses & subtly
>alters doctrin.
This statement assumes that the Alexandrian MSS "removed" many verses
when the evidence suggests that the Byzantine MSS behind the TR / KJV
actually added these verses. The Alexandrian MSS are in a minority
after the 5th C., but constitute the MAJORITY of MSS BEFORE the 5th C.
In fact, there are NO extant MSS of the Byzantine text type before the
5th C. The Byzantine text type with its additions came into being
sometime after Constantine.
>Slowly these verson change (they already have a "gender neutral"
>version of the NIV. It was relesed in the UK. On one side, the KJV people reject
>the minority because they say it is corupt. (I belive this) On the other, the
>proponets of the "new" version argue that thier versions are easier to read & are
>based on texts that are older & beter.
>
>It is a big debate becasue it is over the very Word of God & what it is. I argue
>that God's word is singular, it is not found in conflicting mss & conflicting
>versions of the bible. God is NOT the author of confusion! Satan is.
>
>God Bless you.
>
>DR
>
>> The KJV
>> is a version, not the original autograph. Why, for example, would the
>> KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
>> MSS.
>>
>> One gets the impression that there are still some who go along with
>> the old saying that "the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, so
>> it is good enough for me."
>>
>> Actually, the KJV is a very poor translation in many areas, even
>> though it has its good points.
>>
>> Graeme Hunt
>> invi...@ihug.co.nz
>> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~invictus
>
>
>
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>mljr1 wrote:
>
>> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
>> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
>> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>
>God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the same.
Neither are the various editions of the KJV. In 1611, Psa. 69:32 in
the KJV read, "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's
KJVs the same Pslam reads, "...and your heart shall live that seek
God." Which is the "preserved Word of God?" And how do you know
this?
>(the New KJV say that the path of salvation is diffucult, the KJV says it is
>narrow) All of us, who are looking at this objectivly, would agree that these
>two word MEAN tow diferent things!
I assume you are talking about Mt. 7:14 --
"Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it." (KJV)
"Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads
to life, and there are few who find it." (NKJV)
Both translations say the same thing using slightly different words --
that the way leading to life is narrow and hard, and few will find it.
So what exactly is the problem?
>
>So, if they are diferent, then one is wrong - Which one?
Given that they both mean exactly the same thing, I assume you are
asking which one has the wording closest to the original. What does
the Greek text say? The word "stene" means "narrow," and the word
"tethlimmene" means "narrow, confined, constricted." So neither the
KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
>
>Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
Where did God say HOW He would preserve his Word? (Personally, I
believe God preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS we have.)
Where did God say he would preserve His Word exclusively in a 17th C.
Anglican translation for English speaking people living at the end of
the 20th C? Did the English speaking people not have the preserved
Word of God before 1611?
>
>>
>>
>> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
>
>Of what, & acording to whom?
>
>The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>
>How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
>have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
Compare them against the Greek and Hebrew text and go with the ones
that give the best rendering.
>
>Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your "portrait" on
>that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that agree
>with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
>
>How do you decide this?
>
>> is a Bible. KJV,
>> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>>
>> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
>
>Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
True... but many of the KJV's translators were high church Anglicans
who believed in things like infant baptism, episcopal church
government, observing saints' days as holy days, wearing chausibles
and using candles and incense, and using readings from the Apocrypha
as scripture in public worship.
>
>> It
>> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
>> now have.
>
>Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did.
They didn't have access to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And they most
certainly didn't have access to any of the papyrus MSS discovered in
the 19th and 20th C.
>They had access to many
>of the mss used in todays versions, or copies of them. Archangle made an
>argument on this newsgroup that the minority mss were translated & copies were
>made all through christian history. The KJV translators rejected this type of
>text.
>
>Archangel wrote:
>"The following late minuscules have the same
>Alexandrian text-type as these early papyri and codices: 33 (9th C.);
>81 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (1044 AD); 104 in Acts, Paulines,
>and Catholics (1087 AD); 326 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (12th
>C.); 579 in the Gospels (13th C.); 892 in the Gospels (9th C.); 1006
>in Revelation (11th C.); 1175 (11th C.); 1611 in Revelation (12th C.);
>1241 in the Gospels (12th C.); 1243 (11th C.); 1739 in the Paulines
>and Catholics (10th C.); 1854 in Revelation (11th C.); 2053 in
>Revelation (13th C.); 2062 (13th C.); 2067 (13th C.); 2344 in
>Revelation (11th C.); 2474 (14th C.) So the texts WERE used, copied,
>and preserved. "
>
>So, why did the KJV translators reject these texts?
Because the KJV translators were mistaken in their textual choices.
However, their error was an honest one, since obviously they didn't
have the benefit of the wealth of MSS discovered since 1611 which shed
an entirely new light on the history of the NT text.
>
>> I love the KJV though.
>>
>> Let this argument end.
>
>The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of the
>situation.
I love the KJV too, and use it as one of my three main English
translations in my own personal study. However, I have no illusions
about its problems and limitations.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>Would you read the JW's bible as a commentary?
>
>The New Bibles are based on corrupted mss that came from a town know for its
>carnal & sinful culture - alexandrea, egypt. Many of the so called best mss
>can be traced back to a world renowned school in this town. It gave birth to
>the modern day occult, it also gave birth to the modern day bible version.
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to substantiate these wild claims
you are making?
You need to study your ancient church history. Alexandria was a huge
city, and one of the centers of learning and scholarship. It had one
of the most active and influential churches in the early centuries of
Christianity. (One ancient tradition even claimed that the church in
Alexandria was founded by St. Mark himself!) The Alexandrian church
was especially hard-hit by Diocletian's persecution, and during that
time many faithful believers were martyred for their faith and their
copies of the Scriptures were confiscated and destroyed. In the years
after Constantine's conversion, Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria,
was a powerful defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
>
>the following are a few verses to look up in the NIV & KJV. You will see that
>if you read the NIV - you may miss a few things.....
>
>Matt. 18:11 salvation! (OMITED)
This verse wasn't "omitted," since it wasn't part of Matthew to begin
with. It was imported from Lk. 19:10, where you WILL find it in the
NIV.
>Acts 8:37 Baptism! (OMITED)
This verse is missing from the MAJORITY of Greek MSS too. This is a
striking example of one of the more than 1500 instances where the KJV
follows a reading found in a MINORITY of Greek MSS.
>Matt. 17:21 Advice for spiritual warfare FROM JESUS! (you don't want to miss
>this) (OMITED)
>I Cor. 7:5 More advice re: fasting, prayer & protecting youself from
>satan. (KEY PARTS OMITED)
These references to fasting are not found in an impressive array of
the oldest and best MSS from a variety of geographical locations.
They were added later, possibly under the influence of Christian
ascetics.
>
>Why not read them as commentaries? You may get shorted! Literaly.
>
>Is it not odd that refrences to fasting seem to be struck from verses talking
>about spiritual warfare? It almost seems as if someone wanted this done for
>some unknown reason....Who would want such a thing done?.....
Perhaps those who believe that they should have God's Word as it was
originally given WITHOUT the later additions of ascetic monks?
Archangel
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>>The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
>>the original text.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
>>they are not divinely inspired.
>
>True, inspiration doesn't extend to the translation process; yet
>because translations are derived from inspired originals, they
>maintain a degree of derivative inspiration.
>
Okay, now we are close to splitting hairs. I'll leave it there.
Graeme Hunt
wrote:
>The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>
You don't call that a translation, do you?
Kjasowen
>Erasmus, the Roman Catholic monk who prepared the Greek text behind
>the TR/ KJV, wrote a scholarly treatise defending the doctrine of
>transubstantiation and considered Anabaptists to be evil. Would that
>make him an "apostate?"
Kjasowen
Was Erasmus a reformer?
Kjasowen
>The KJV
>is a version, not the original autograph.
Kjasowen
Right, I agree. Where did the orginal autograph come?
>Graeme Hunt
>Why, for example, would the
>KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
>MSS.
Kjasowen
I disagree with your quotation because Erasmus translated for English and
Luther translated for Germany. The KJV and the German Bible are accurate
tranalstions. These accurate translations are called, "TR." I cannot say that
the KJV is better than the accurate German Bible.
>Graeme Hunt
>One gets the impression that there are still some who go along with
>the old saying that "the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, so
>it is good enough for me."
>
Kjasowen
That's what I heard
>Graeme Hunt
>Actually, the KJV is a very poor translation in many areas, even
>though it has its good points.
Kjasowen
Why did you think the KJV is a poor translation?
Kjasowen
>I was addressing both sides.
>1. KJV only = stupid
>2. KJV is bad = stupid
>
Kjasowen
I would like you to give me your definition of "only" please answer for me.
Why do you think the KJV is bad?
Kjasowen
>Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
>people.
Kjasowen
You sound like that you are on the WH side.
>Archangel
> I would recommend reading several different
>translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
>and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
Kjasowen
I studied on the textual criticism course, "Inspiration and Canonicity." I
learned about the TR side and WH side. I am aware of their Greek texts and
their MSS.
>Archangel
>I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
>revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
>revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
>different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
Kjasowen
The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are nothing wrong and are the Word of God,
however they were revised if necessary, to improve by right spelling or better
grammar. One IMPORTANT thing is that they NEVER change ANY DOCTRINES of Bible.
>Archangel
>I would think that ANY version which correctly and faithfully
>translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
>
Kjasowen
There are 2 lines of Bible translations: The TR line and the WH line. They that
are different are not the same. The fact is that 5210 MSS supported the KJV and
45 MSS supported these modern versions.
Kjasowen
>The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
Kjasowen
It is very interesting to tell you the fact. The JW Bible (NWT) and NIV are
almost same.
Kjasowen
>None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
>the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
>Aaramaic in some portions.
Kjasowen
God inspired the OT and NT then preserved Hebrews and Greek MSS. Where is the
Bible? Do you say the KJV is not the inspired, preserved Word of God even the
TR Russian Bible, the TR German Bible and so on? Where is the inspired,
preserved Word of God?
Kjasowen
>The mss we use today, are not "original", they are copies of copies, of
>copies....
Kjasowen
Absolutely, there are 5255 MSS.
>David Rea
>WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS!!!!
Kjasowen
Right
Kjasowen
> If the originals are inspired, but copies are not, then we have
>NO Bible!!!!!
Kjasowen
I am curious to ask you one question:
Are you a fan of Peter Ruckman?
>David Rea
>All of the originals are long lost/destroyed. What we have today are
>copies of copies of copies.
Kjasowen
Right again! Copies of copies of copies are called, "apographa."
Kjasowen
>Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
>10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
>
Kjasowen
If the eclipse was occured in Luke 23:45,
it denies the omnipotence of God.
>Archangel
>The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
>Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
>the 1769 KJV?
>
Kjasowen
The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV did NOT change any doctrines. They are nothing
wrong. The different editions of KJV improved spellings and grammars, however
they are still the inspired, preserved Word of God. 5210 MSS supported them. Is
the Geneva 1557 Bible the inspired, preserved Word of God? Is Olivetan (French)
1535 Bible the inspired, preserved Word of God? Is the Luther (German) 1522
Bible the inspired, preserved Bible? These Bibles are accurate translations
likewise the KJV, not modern versions.
>Archangel
>Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
>and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
>hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
Kjasowen
They followed the WH line and twisted any doctrines such as Matthew 18:11,
Matthew 17:21 and Acts8:37.
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 11 Oct 1999 00:56:43 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>mljr1
>> >>I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
>> >>"one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
>> >>is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >The KJV derived from the Greek, Hebrews and Aramic manuscripts. I speak English
>> >or ASL only, however I have a foreign dictionary like Strong's concordance for
>> >my study on Greek NT and Hebrews OT. The accurate Bible for English people is
>> >the KJV.
>>
>> Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
>> people.
>
>It is accurate to the text it was translated from.
Not always. For instance, the KJV mistranslates Heb. 10:23 as
"profession of [our] FAITH" instead of "HOPE," which is what the Greek
text of the TR says.
>
>> The KJV is accurate in many places, less accurate in others,
>> and in error in others. I would recommend reading several different
>> translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
>> and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
>>
>> >Do the Germans have the accurate Bible? Do Russians have the accurate
>> >Bible? Do Italians have the accurate Bible? And so on. Yes, they have their
>> >inspired, preserved Bibles according to Romans 16:26. I don't believe the KJV
>> >for all foreign people who must read the English language. These foreginers
>> >have their accurate Bible translations
>> >
>> >>mljr1
>> >>Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait is a Bible. KJV,
>> >>NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >These modern versions that are different are not the same. NIV has 6500 change,
>> >addition and omission; NASB has 4000; New King James Version has 2000. Which
>> >Bible version is the Word of God?
>>
>> I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
>> revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
>> revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
>> different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
>
>The changes were for such things as spelling (no standardized spelling existed in
>the days the KJV was writen. In addition printing was new, & many printing errors
>were made. These changes were not changes in meanings of words, or structures of
>verses, ect. I am sure that you would know this Archangel! You seem to be very on
>top of this!
Some of the changes involved more than just standardization of the
spelling. Consider the following examples from the 1611 KJV:
- Ruth 3:15 - "...and HE went into the city." Today's KJVs read
"...and SHE went into the city."
- 1 Samuel 18:27 -- "David arose, he and his men...." Today's KJVs
read, "David arose AND WENT, he and his men...."
- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that SEEKE GOODE."
Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that SEEK GOD."
- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom YEE had set
at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid,
whom HE had set at liberty...."
- Ezekiel 24:7 -- "...poured it upon the ground...." Today's KJVs
read, "...poured it NOT upon the ground."
- 1 Timothy 1:4 -- "...rather than edifying." Today's KJVs read,
"...rather than GODLY edifying"
Note that all these changes affect the words and the meaning of the
verses. And as my KJV-Only friends are fond of pointing out in other
situations, "things that ate different are not the same." So which of
these different KJV's is the Word of God? And how do you know?
>
>> I would think that ANY version which correctly and faithfully
>> translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
>>
>
>Which
>Greek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Short answer: the UBS 4 / NA 27
Longer answer: In some 90% of cases, ALL Greek MSS are identical.
There are no variant readings, so we KNOW we have the exact words of
the original autographs. In the remaining 10% or so of cases where
there ARE variant readings (none of which significantly affect any
major Christian doctrien, I might add), the original text can be
determined by comparing and evaluating the MSS evidence. The UBS 4 /
NA 27 Greek texts do this, and list the MS evidence in support of
their textual choices in the footnotes along with the variant
readings.
>
>Would you favor translating every verse in the mss "B" & using that as a Bible? If
>not why? Same question for Aleph - all three version of it...
That's what Westcott & Hort did... they relied too much on B for their
Greek NT. (That's also why, incidentally, no textual critic today
accepts or uses the Greek text of W&H, and why the UBS 4 / NA 27 is
different from W&H's Greek text.) No textual critic today would
blindly follow the readings of any ONE MS -- they would compare the
total MS evidence and go with the reading that has the best overall
support in accordance with the generally accepted principles of
textual criticism. There are places where B stands alone against the
combined evidence of the oldest and best MSS; in such cases, the
evidence tells us that B does not have the best reading. Ditto for
Aleph, or any other single MS. It's the AGREEMENTS between MSS that
are used to determine the best reading.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>> nd Hebrew text for
>> >>accuracy.
>> >
>> >And they all come up with different translations, so who is correct?
>> >Take your pick!
>>
>> Translations may differ in wording, yet convey the same meaning.
>>
>
>Wrong! I have found many places where they DO NOT mean the same thing.
>
>> >
>> >The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
>> >the original text.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
>So, there is NO inspired Word of God in writing ANYWHERE TODAY!!!????
>
>The mss we use today, are not "original", they are copies of copies, of
>copies....
>
>> >I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
>> >they are not divinely inspired.
>>
>> True, inspiration doesn't extend to the translation process; yet
>> because translations are derived from inspired originals
>
>No, translations comes from inspired copies of copies of copies of
>originals... You know that we do not have the "originals" if we did thier
>would be no debate!! We would have ONE copy of each book, & that would be the
>text used to translate from. WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS!!!!
You are correct. We don't have the original inspired AUTOGRAPHS. We
do, however, have the original inspired WORDS that were IN those
autographs. God has preserved them in the Greek and Hebrew copies we
have today.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>Roger Jefferson
>> >>Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >A commentary is for your Bible study, however please be careful because there
>> >are some scholars that are Catholics, Methodist or Fundamentalists or cults,
>> >wrote in one commentary. This could lead to the confusion reflecting these
>> >scholars' belief. I found wrong responses from one of them. An example of Luke
>> >23:45 is that some scholars referred this verse to the eclipse, which
>> >contradicted with the passover during the FULL moon.
>>
>> Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
>> 10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
>>
>> >
>> >Some commentaries help you to understand what the Bible said. I have about 6
>> >different commentaries. I used them for my Bible study.
>> >
>> >These modern versions that are different are not the same. Which Bible version
>> >is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>>
>> The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
>> Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
>> the 1769 KJV?
>
>How about this, you list the verses in these two that differ! Then the answer will
>become evident.
Here are some of the verses in the 1611 KJV:
- Ruth 3:15 - "...and HE went into the city." Today's KJVs read
"...and SHE went into the city."
- 1 Samuel 18:27 -- "David arose, he and his men...." Today's KJVs
read, "David arose AND WENT, he and his men...."
- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that SEEKE GOODE."
Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that SEEK GOD."
- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom YEE had set
at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid,
whom HE had set at liberty...."
- Ezekiel 24:7 -- "...poured it upon the ground...." Today's KJVs
read, "...poured it NOT upon the ground."
- 1 Timothy 1:4 -- "...rather than edifying." Today's KJVs read,
"...rather than GODLY edifying"
Is it really evident which of these two KJV's is the "inspired,
preserved Word of God?" How do you KNOW which one it is?
Archangel
Archangel
Nope. He was a Roman Catholic monk, and remained one until the day he
died.
Archangel
Vernon O
KJV only means that those who adhere to it believe KJV to be the only or
most nearly accurate translation of the bible.
KJV is in another language. This happens to be an English speaking N.G.
Although I am easily irritated, I get really disgusted when I hear someone
trying to read from the KJV, obviously can barely read and does not
understand the words they are attempting to pronounce. They are too proud
and ignorant to go get themselves an NIV. NASB(V) is NOT any better. The
language is clumsy in a very poor attempt at being literal to appease the
intellectual snobs. The NRSV is in the same category.
KJV is a marvel, mathematically when compared with old Hebrew.
KJV is a marvel of English open prose and poetry.
So is the universe.
Vernon O
Which version says different than we are to love God with all our heart,
soul, strength mind and our neighbor as ourselves?
No version is as accurate, mathematically, as KJV (first corrected,
authorized and printed version). Like it or not, God had His hand in it.
Like it or not, extremely few can understand KJV no matter how smart they
THINK they are.
Archangel <nos...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3803187a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Vernon O
David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net> wrote in message
news:38025A4A...@northcascades.net...
>
>
> mljr1 wrote:
>
> > I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to
the
> > "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The
They don't exist.
> >KJV
is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>
> God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the
same.
> (the New KJV say that the path of salvation is diffucult, the KJV says it
is
> narrow) All of us, who are looking at this objectivly, would agree that
these
> two word MEAN tow diferent things!
>
> So, if they are diferent, then one is wrong - Which one?
>
> Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
>
> >
> >
> > Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
>
> Of what, & acording to whom?
>
> The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>
> How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If
you
> have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
>
> Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your
"portrait" on
> that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that
agree
> with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
>
> How do you decide this?
>
> > is a Bible. KJV,
> > NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
> >
> > In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
>
> Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
>
> > It
> > did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which
we
> > now have.
>
> Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did. They had access to
many
> of the mss used in todays versions, or copies of them. Archangle made an
> argument on this newsgroup that the minority mss were translated & copies
were
> made all through christian history. The KJV translators rejected this type
of
> text.
>
> Archangel wrote:
> "The following late minuscules have the same
> Alexandrian text-type as these early papyri and codices: 33 (9th C.);
> 81 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (1044 AD); 104 in Acts, Paulines,
> and Catholics (1087 AD); 326 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (12th
> C.); 579 in the Gospels (13th C.); 892 in the Gospels (9th C.); 1006
> in Revelation (11th C.); 1175 (11th C.); 1611 in Revelation (12th C.);
> 1241 in the Gospels (12th C.); 1243 (11th C.); 1739 in the Paulines
> and Catholics (10th C.); 1854 in Revelation (11th C.); 2053 in
> Revelation (13th C.); 2062 (13th C.); 2067 (13th C.); 2344 in
> Revelation (11th C.); 2474 (14th C.) So the texts WERE used, copied,
> and preserved. "
>
> So, why did the KJV translators reject these texts?
>
> > I love the KJV though.
> >
> > Let this argument end.
>
> The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of
the
> situation.
>
> >
> >
> > Kjasowen <kjas...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:19991008195231...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> > > Hello everyone:
> > >
> > > I am just curious to wonder if you are aware of my question or not,
just
> > > discuss with this question.
> > >
> > > If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you
defend
> > the
> > > apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
>
>
>
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:33:48 GMT, invi...@ihug.co.nz (Graeme Hunt)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Which Bible version
>> >>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
>> >
>> >None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
>> >the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
>> >Aaramaic in some portions.
>>
>> I would say that English translations are also the inspired Word of
>> God, but in a DERIVATIVE sense. The Scriptures as given in the
>> original languages are inspired in a PRIMARY sense,
>>
>
>Where is the basis for this in scripture? I know God said he would preserve
>the scripture. I know of nothing that talks about two types of Bibles! Now,
>you did not just make this up - did you?
The Biblical basis for this is 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pet. 1:21. Read
these verses and then ask yourself: "in what languages were these
inspired scriptures given?" Then ponder the fact that nowhere in the
Scriptures do we find an instance of an inspired written TRANSLATION
from one language into another.
Besides, I might ask you a similar question: where does it say in the
Scriptures that God will preserve his word for English speaking people
in a 17th C. English translation and no other?
Archangel
Archangel
>>Graeme Hunt
>>The KJV
>>is a version, not the original autograph.
>
>Kjasowen
>Right, I agree. Where did the orginal autograph come?
>
>>Graeme Hunt
>>Why, for example, would the
>>KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
>>MSS.
>
>Kjasowen
>I disagree with your quotation because Erasmus translated for English and
>Luther translated for Germany. The KJV and the German Bible are accurate
>tranalstions. These accurate translations are called, "TR." I cannot say that
>the KJV is better than the accurate German Bible.
The above comments are not quite correct. Erasmus did not translate
anything into English; he prepared a printed Greek text of the NT
which first appeared in 1516. The third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT
(1535) was the basis of Stephanus' Greek NT (1550), which in turn was
the "Textus Receptus" used by the KJV translators. Interestingly, the
first two editions of Erasmus' Greek NT did not have the Johannine
Comma (1 Jn. 5:7) because Erasmus could find no Greek MS containing
the verse. He included the Comma in his third edition after being
shown it in MS 61, a 16th C. Greek copy of the NT some believe was
prepared expressly for the purpose of providing MS support for the
Comma. Luther's German Bible was based on an earlier version of
Erasmus' text, and did not have the Comma.
Archangel
Archangel
>>Archangel
>>Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
>>people.
>
>Kjasowen
>You sound like that you are on the WH side.
I am on the side of the truth as it pertains to the Word of God. The
KJV is accurate in many places, less accurate in others, and in error
in others. That is simply a fact.
>
>>Archangel
>> I would recommend reading several different
>>translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
>>and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
>
>Kjasowen
>I studied on the textual criticism course, "Inspiration and Canonicity." I
>learned about the TR side and WH side. I am aware of their Greek texts and
>their MSS.
Then you are also aware that since both the TR and W&H, we have
discovered papyrus MSS that are older than the oldest texts behind
both of them. This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
>
>>Archangel
>>I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
>>revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
>>revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
>>different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
>
>Kjasowen
>The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are nothing wrong and are the Word of God,
>however they were revised if necessary, to improve by right spelling or better
>grammar. One IMPORTANT thing is that they NEVER change ANY DOCTRINES of Bible.
Really? So are we to "seek good" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
(Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
change!
>
>>Archangel
>>I would think that ANY version which correctly and faithfully
>>translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
>>
>
>Kjasowen
>There are 2 lines of Bible translations: The TR line and the WH line. They that
>are different are not the same. The fact is that 5210 MSS supported the KJV and
>45 MSS supported these modern versions
But numbers alone don't tell the whole story. The majority of MSS
behind the TR are all LATE, representing a text type that didn't exist
before the 5th C. The minority of MSS behind the modern critical
texts are all EARLY, and therefore have a better witness to the
original text of the NT. One of the principles of textual criticism
is, "manuscripts are to be WEIGHED, not COUNTED." A single MS with
an early text is more valuable than a thousand MSS with a late text.
Archangel
Archangel
>>David Rea
>>The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>
>Kjasowen
>It is very interesting to tell you the fact. The JW Bible (NWT) and NIV are
>almost same.
No, they aren't. The NWT is a theologically slanted translation that
frequently departs from the plain meaning of the Greek text in the
interests of promoting JW theology. The NIV, though not without its
problems, is at least a faithful translation of the Greek text. One
example: the NWT translates John 8:58 as, "Before Abraham came into
existence, I HAVE BEEN." To translate what the Greek really says --
"before Abraham was born, I AM" -- would demolish JW's belief that
Christ was not God, since Jesus would not be refering to himself as
the I AM of Ex. 3:14. The NIV translates the verse correctly as
"before Abraham was born, I AM!"
Archangel
Archangel
>>Archangel
>>Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
>>10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
>>
>
>Kjasowen
>If the eclipse was occured in Luke 23:45,
>it denies the omnipotence of God.
How so?
>
>>Archangel
>>The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
>>Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
>>the 1769 KJV?
>>
>
>Kjasowen
>The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV did NOT change any doctrines. They are nothing
>wrong. The different editions of KJV improved spellings and grammars, however
>they are still the inspired, preserved Word of God. 5210 MSS supported them. Is
>the Geneva 1557 Bible the inspired, preserved Word of God? Is Olivetan (French)
>1535 Bible the inspired, preserved Word of God? Is the Luther (German) 1522
>Bible the inspired, preserved Bible? These Bibles are accurate translations
>likewise the KJV, not modern versions.
You raise some interesting questions. How can BOTH the Geneva Bible
AND the KJV be "the inspired, preserved Word of God" in the English
language when they are not the same? Remember, "things that are
different are not the same." Furthermore, if the Geneva Bible IS the
"inspired, preserved Word of God" in English, why was the KJV
necessary when we already had the Word of God?
>
>>Archangel
>>Any modern version that accurately and faithfully translates the Greek
>>and Hebrew text of the Scriptures into English that modern readers and
>>hearers can clearly understand is the Word of God.
>
>Kjasowen
>They followed the WH line and twisted any doctrines such as Matthew 18:11,
>Matthew 17:21 and Acts 8:37.
You are mistaken -- look at the facts. (1) Mt. 18:11 is not found in
the earliest and best MSS, though the parallel passage in Lk. 19:10
containing EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS is found in ALL modern versions.
(2) Mt. 17:21 is not found in the earliest and best MSS, though
teaching about fasting is found elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Dan.
9:3, Lk. 2:37, Ac. 14:23). (3) Ac. 8:37 is missing from the MAJORITY
of ALL the Greek. MSS that the KJV is allegedly based upon! Why is
this minority reading in the KJV?
Archangel
Archangel
>>David Rea
>>The mss we use today, are not "original", they are copies of copies, of
>>copies....
>
>Kjasowen
>Absolutely, there are 5255 MSS.
>
>>David Rea
>>WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS!!!!
>
>Kjasowen
>Right
>
>
We don't have the original autographs, but we DO have the original
WORDS that were in those autographs. God has preserved them in the
Greek and Hebrew copies.
Archangel
Vernon O
BTW King James Bible or KJV does not describe the bible the thread is about.
If you want to be picky it is something to the effect of the Authorized
Version as translated and written with the "something or other" of James,
King of England. Now if we are going to say that a difference in language
or reference changes the word of God, everyone is actually talking about a
Bible that never existed.news:3803a0f9...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are nothing wrong and are the Word of God,
> >however they were revised if necessary, to improve by right spelling or
better
> >grammar. One IMPORTANT thing is that they NEVER change ANY DOCTRINES of
Bible.
>
> Really? So are we to "seek good" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
> (Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
> same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
> change!
>
> >
> >>Archangel
> >>translates the Greek and Hebrew texts into English is the Word of God.
> >>
> >
> >Kjasowen
Vernon O
> >Graeme Hunt
> >The KJV
> >is a version, not the original autograph.
>
> Kjasowen
> Right, I agree. Where did the orginal autograph come?
>
> >Graeme Hunt
> >Why, for example, would the
> >KJV be any better than, say, a German version translated from the same
> >MSS.
>
> Kjasowen
> I disagree with your quotation because Erasmus translated for English and
> Luther translated for Germany. The KJV and the German Bible are accurate
> tranalstions. These accurate translations are called, "TR." I cannot say
that
> the KJV is better than the accurate German Bible.
I can probably read the German as well as most can read the KJV. I can
barely read German.
>
> >Graeme Hunt
> >One gets the impression that there are still some who go along with
> >the old saying that "the KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul, so
> >it is good enough for me."
> >
>
> Kjasowen
> That's what I heard
>
> >Graeme Hunt
> >Actually, the KJV is a very poor translation in many areas, even
> >though it has its good points.
>
> Kjasowen
> Why did you think the KJV is a poor translation?
Vernon O
Either of which makes no sense whatever in 1999 unless one understands the
context and the Hebrew implication of "I AM" which is NOT a sentence within
itself.
David Rea
Graeme Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:44:42 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
> >
>
> You don't call that a translation, do you?
I look at it in the same light as the NIV. It is an example of the
destination the new bibles seem to be headed in.
>
>
> Graeme Hunt
> invi...@ihug.co.nz
> http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~invictus
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:44:42 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mljr1 wrote:
> >
> >> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
> >> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
> >> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
> >
> >God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the same.
>
> Neither are the various editions of the KJV. In 1611, Psa. 69:32 in
> the KJV read, "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's
> KJVs the same Pslam reads, "...and your heart shall live that seek
> God." Which is the "preserved Word of God?" And how do you know
> this?
'seeke goode' vs 'seek God' - is this an example of a change or a
typographical/spelling error. Before you answer keep in mind printing was a new
thing in 1611, & their was no standard spelling.
I do not see the significance or validity of this attack on the KJV.
>
>
> >(the New KJV say that the path of salvation is diffucult, the KJV says it is
> >narrow) All of us, who are looking at this objectivly, would agree that these
> >two word MEAN tow diferent things!
>
> I assume you are talking about Mt. 7:14 --
>
> "Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth
> unto life, and few there be that find it." (KJV)
>
> "Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads
> to life, and there are few who find it." (NKJV)
>
> Both translations say the same thing using slightly different words --
> that the way leading to life is narrow and hard, and few will find it.
> So what exactly is the problem?
Difficult means something different than narrow.
It is difficult to climb over the mountan (few are ABLE to do), However, ANYONE WHO
WANTS TO can drive over the road cut through the pass - but it is very narrow, not
all roads in the mountans lead though to the other side, only one does.
Salvation is not difficult, it is easy - however there is only one narrow way -
Jesus.
> >
> >So, if they are diferent, then one is wrong - Which one?
>
> Given that they both mean exactly the same thing,
Is it difficult to become saved?
> I assume you are
> asking which one has the wording closest to the original. What does
> the Greek text say? The word "stene" means "narrow," and the word
> "tethlimmene" means "narrow, confined, constricted." So neither the
> KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
Does that word mean difficult? No. The three words you listed above are all very
good words to discribe salvation. It is important to note that "narrow, confined,
constricted" all have a similar meaning. How do you figure that the neither the
KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
> >
> >Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
>
> Where did God say HOW He would preserve his Word? (Personally, I
> believe God preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS we have.)
But the Greek & Hebrew mss we have now do not agree. Also, if you belive that the
mss were kept preserved, why could not the translated word also be preseved?
> Where did God say he would preserve His Word exclusively in a 17th C.
> Anglican translation for English speaking people living at the end of
> the 20th C?
I don't know, I never contended this.
> Did the English speaking people not have the preserved
> Word of God before 1611?
Yes & no. it existed, but much of it was not translated into english, english was a
new language in the centuries before 1611. As the english language developed, so did
the Word of God.
You clearly would argue that they did not. They did not have these "new" mss that
are the word of God - according to you.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
> >
> >Of what, & acording to whom?
> >
> >The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
> >
> >How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
> >have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
>
> Compare them against the Greek and Hebrew text and go with the ones
> that give the best rendering.
Which text? Why?
> >
> >Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your "portrait" on
> >that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that agree
> >with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
> >
> >How do you decide this?
> >
> >> is a Bible. KJV,
> >> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
> >>
> >> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
> >
> >Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
>
> True... but many of the KJV's translators were high church Anglicans
> who believed in things like infant baptism, episcopal church
> government, observing saints' days as holy days, wearing chausibles
> and using candles and incense, and using readings from the Apocrypha
> as scripture in public worship.
And the implication is?......
So if a modern day translator were, say a member of the occult, would that effect
your opinion of the translated work?
>
>
> >
> >> It
> >> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
> >> now have.
> >
> >Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did.
>
> They didn't have access to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And they most
> certainly didn't have access to any of the papyrus MSS discovered in
> the 19th and 20th C.
What were the mss you used to justify the use of "B" & "A" throughout the centuries?
Why did they not use these?
>
>
> >They had access to many
> >of the mss used in todays versions, or copies of them. Archangle made an
> >argument on this newsgroup that the minority mss were translated & copies were
> >made all through christian history. The KJV translators rejected this type of
> >text.
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >"The following late minuscules have the same
> >Alexandrian text-type as these early papyri and codices: 33 (9th C.);
> >81 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (1044 AD); 104 in Acts, Paulines,
> >and Catholics (1087 AD); 326 in Acts, Paulines, and Catholics (12th
> >C.); 579 in the Gospels (13th C.); 892 in the Gospels (9th C.); 1006
> >in Revelation (11th C.); 1175 (11th C.); 1611 in Revelation (12th C.);
> >1241 in the Gospels (12th C.); 1243 (11th C.); 1739 in the Paulines
> >and Catholics (10th C.); 1854 in Revelation (11th C.); 2053 in
> >Revelation (13th C.); 2062 (13th C.); 2067 (13th C.); 2344 in
> >Revelation (11th C.); 2474 (14th C.) So the texts WERE used, copied,
> >and preserved. "
> >
> >So, why did the KJV translators reject these texts?
>
> Because the KJV translators were mistaken in their textual choices.
> However, their error was an honest one, since obviously they didn't
> have the benefit of the wealth of MSS discovered since 1611 which shed
> an entirely new light on the history of the NT text.
Maybe they looked at them the same way I do - they are corrupt. But to argue they
did not have access to them, well you can't do that! You can't argue that the mss
existed & were used while also arguing that the KJV translators did not have access
to these types of mss!
> >
> >> I love the KJV though.
> >>
> >> Let this argument end.
> >
> >The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of the
> >situation.
>
> I love the KJV too, and use it as one of my three main English
> translations in my own personal study. However, I have no illusions
> about its problems and limitations.
>
> Archangel
I can see some problems & limitations, but none that cannot be overcome by STUDY. I
however see & understand the attack the enemy is making on us with these new
Bibles.
David Rea
Kjasowen wrote:
> >David Rea
> > If the originals are inspired, but copies are not, then we have
> >NO Bible!!!!!
>
> Kjasowen
> I am curious to ask you one question:
> Are you a fan of Peter Ruckman?
I have heard his name, but never read any of his work. So, I would not
consider myself "a fan", but as I said, I have not read his work.
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:44:42 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >mljr1 wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
>> >> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
>> >> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
>> >
>> >God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the same.
>>
>> Neither are the various editions of the KJV. In 1611, Psa. 69:32 in
>> the KJV read, "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's
>> KJVs the same Pslam reads, "...and your heart shall live that seek
>> God." Which is the "preserved Word of God?" And how do you know
>> this?
>
>'seeke goode' vs 'seek God' - is this an example of a change or a
>typographical/spelling error. Before you answer keep in mind printing was a new
>thing in 1611, & their was no standard spelling.
That's just the point... we don't know, and CAN'T know, if this was an
example of a deliberate change or a printing error. We don't have the
translators notes or proofs -- so in effect, the "originals" behind
the KJV are lost. So how do we know which KJV is right?
>
>I do not see the significance or validity of this attack on the KJV.
The significance: it is not an "attack" on the KJV as much as it is
pointing out the double standard found in so many KJV-Only arguments.
The new versions are routinely faulted for being "different," and the
question is asked, "which Bible is the right one, and how do we know?"
Yet the SAME problem exists for the various editions of the KJV.
Because the KJV uses the word "strait" and the NKJV uses the word
"difficult," neither of which are the best translation of the Greek
words in the text.
>
>> >
>> >Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
>>
>> Where did God say HOW He would preserve his Word? (Personally, I
>> believe God preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS we have.)
>
>But the Greek & Hebrew mss we have now do not agree.
All Greek MSS agree for around 90% of the text, so we know we have the
original words in these cases. For the 10% where there is
disagreement, we can determine the original reading by examining the
MSS evidence and applying the principles of textual criticism.
>Also, if you belive that the
>mss were kept preserved, why could not the translated word also be preseved?
God could have chosen to preserve the translated word. God could also
have chosen to preserve all the MSS copies without variants, or even
to preserve the original autographs. The issue, however, is not what
God COULD have done, but what God actually DID. And God, in His
wisdom, chose not to do any of these.
>
>> Where did God say he would preserve His Word exclusively in a 17th C.
>> Anglican translation for English speaking people living at the end of
>> the 20th C?
>
>I don't know, I never contended this.
>
>> Did the English speaking people not have the preserved
>> Word of God before 1611?
>
>Yes & no. it existed, but much of it was not translated into english, english was a
>new language in the centuries before 1611. As the english language developed, so did
>the Word of God.
The question, "did the English speaking people not have the preserved
Word of God before 1611?" is a dangerous one (like Jesus' question
about John the Baptist), and points out a fatal flaw in the KJV-Only
position. If you answer "yes," then why was the KJV necessary, since
people already had the preserved Word of God? If you say "no," then
how is it that the entire English Reformation occurred without the
Word of God in English?
>You clearly would argue that they did not. They did not have these "new" mss that
>are the word of God - according to you.
No, I would argue that they had the Word of God in the English in
Wycliffe's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible,
Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great
Bible as well as the KJV. They just didn't have that Word of God from
the best Greek text availiable.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
>> >
>> >Of what, & acording to whom?
>> >
>> >The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>> >
>> >How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
>> >have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
>>
>> Compare them against the Greek and Hebrew text and go with the ones
>> that give the best rendering.
>
>Which text? Why?
Which text -- for the OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the NT:
UBS 4 / NA 27. Why -- because they are based on the oldest and best
MSS.
>
>> >
>> >Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your "portrait" on
>> >that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that agree
>> >with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
>> >
>> >How do you decide this?
>> >
>> >> is a Bible. KJV,
>> >> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
>> >>
>> >> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
>> >
>> >Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
>>
>> True... but many of the KJV's translators were high church Anglicans
>> who believed in things like infant baptism, episcopal church
>> government, observing saints' days as holy days, wearing chausibles
>> and using candles and incense, and using readings from the Apocrypha
>> as scripture in public worship.
>
>And the implication is?......
>
>So if a modern day translator were, say a member of the occult, would that effect
>your opinion of the translated work?
This is another example of the double standard at work in the KJV-Only
position. If any Greek text or modern version is even remotely
associated with someone suspected of unorthodox theology, this is
immediate grounds for condemning that text or version. Not so when
those of questionable orthodoxy are KJV translators, however!
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> It
>> >> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
>> >> now have.
>> >
>> >Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did.
>>
>> They didn't have access to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And they most
>> certainly didn't have access to any of the papyrus MSS discovered in
>> the 19th and 20th C.
>
>What were the mss you used to justify the use of "B" & "A" throughout the centuries?
>Why did they not use these?
Because the KJV translators didn't have access to those MSS either.
The MSS existed, and were used by other Christians elsewhere; but they
were not known or used by the KJV translators.
>
>> >
>> >> I love the KJV though.
>> >>
>> >> Let this argument end.
>> >
>> >The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of the
>> >situation.
>>
>> I love the KJV too, and use it as one of my three main English
>> translations in my own personal study. However, I have no illusions
>> about its problems and limitations.
>>
>> Archangel
>
>I can see some problems & limitations, but none that cannot be overcome by STUDY. I
>however see & understand the attack the enemy is making on us with these new
>Bibles.
>
But when the KJV is clearly in error (as it is in including spurious
verses like 1 Jn. 5:7 or mistranslating Heb. 10:23 as "faith" instead
of "hope'), or when ANY other translation is in error, for that
matter, then we have a responsibility to point out what the Word of
God actually says.
Archangel
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:10:41 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> nd Hebrew text for
> >> >>accuracy.
> >> >
> >> >And they all come up with different translations, so who is correct?
> >> >Take your pick!
> >>
> >> Translations may differ in wording, yet convey the same meaning.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong! I have found many places where they DO NOT mean the same thing.
> >
> >> >
> >> >The true doctrine of inspiration is the verbal plenary inspiration of
> >> >the original text.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >
> >So, there is NO inspired Word of God in writing ANYWHERE TODAY!!!????
> >
> >The mss we use today, are not "original", they are copies of copies, of
> >copies....
> >
> >> >I'm not knocking translations, we need them, but
> >> >they are not divinely inspired.
> >>
> >> True, inspiration doesn't extend to the translation process; yet
> >> because translations are derived from inspired originals
> >
> >No, translations comes from inspired copies of copies of copies of
> >originals... You know that we do not have the "originals" if we did thier
> >would be no debate!! We would have ONE copy of each book, & that would be the
> >text used to translate from. WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS!!!!
>
> You are correct. We don't have the original inspired AUTOGRAPHS. We
> do, however, have the original inspired WORDS that were IN those
> autographs. God has preserved them in the Greek and Hebrew copies we
> have today.
>
> Archangel
How can God preserve them in the original language, but not preserve them in a
translation?
Where do you come up with this?
DR
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:54:30 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >
> >> On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Roger Jefferson
> >> >>Do you think we shouldn't read them at all? Even as a commentary?
> >> >
> >> >Kjasowen
> >> >A commentary is for your Bible study, however please be careful because there
> >> >are some scholars that are Catholics, Methodist or Fundamentalists or cults,
> >> >wrote in one commentary. This could lead to the confusion reflecting these
> >> >scholars' belief. I found wrong responses from one of them. An example of Luke
> >> >23:45 is that some scholars referred this verse to the eclipse, which
> >> >contradicted with the passover during the FULL moon.
> >>
> >> Are you saying that a God who can make the sun stand still (Josh.
> >> 10:12) can't cause an eclipse to happen during a full moon?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Some commentaries help you to understand what the Bible said. I have about 6
> >> >different commentaries. I used them for my Bible study.
> >> >
> >> >These modern versions that are different are not the same. Which Bible version
> >> >is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
> >>
> >> The different editions of the KJV are different and not the same.
> >> Which KJV is the inspired, preserved Word of God -- the 1611 KJV or
> >> the 1769 KJV?
> >
> >How about this, you list the verses in these two that differ! Then the answer will
> >become evident.
>
> Here are some of the verses in the 1611 KJV:
>
> - Ruth 3:15 - "...and HE went into the city." Today's KJVs read
> "...and SHE went into the city."
>
> - 1 Samuel 18:27 -- "David arose, he and his men...." Today's KJVs
> read, "David arose AND WENT, he and his men...."
>
> - Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that SEEKE GOODE."
> Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that SEEK GOD."
>
> - Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom YEE had set
> at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid,
> whom HE had set at liberty...."
>
> - Ezekiel 24:7 -- "...poured it upon the ground...." Today's KJVs
> read, "...poured it NOT upon the ground."
>
> - 1 Timothy 1:4 -- "...rather than edifying." Today's KJVs read,
> "...rather than GODLY edifying"
>
> Is it really evident which of these two KJV's is the "inspired,
> preserved Word of God?" How do you KNOW which one it is?
>
> Archangel
Many of the verses yuo listed above are clearly changes in spelling, other verses are
cut - so we cannot realy tell what is going on.
For example the word YEE & he could be the same, you have to remember that their was no
standardized spelling at this time & printing was a new thing, subject to many errors.
While the translators may have wrote Gode, the printers may have, in error, added
another "o". It is important to note that each letter had to be individualy inserted
into the printing press, the letters were also seen backwards & thus it was hard to
reproduce a book (print) accuratly. Are these "errors" printing, spelling, or are they
legitimate changes in the wording?
Do you have a copy of the script that was sent to the press? Do you have an
understanding of the variations of the spellings of the words?
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
That is not what the verse you quoted said. It said "seeke goode". Why are you
assuming it means seek good? What are you basing this on? If their was no
standardized spelling in the 1600's, how do you know what a misspelled word means?
Could not the later version be a spelling correction? God & Good sound very similar,
so is it a change in the text, or a correction in spelling? Prove your case!
> (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
> (Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
> same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
> change!
Prove your assumtion that goode = good NOT God. Remember, you cannot use 19th &
20th century rules of spelling - they did not exist!
>
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On 12 Oct 1999 04:37:12 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> >>David Rea
> >>The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >It is very interesting to tell you the fact. The JW Bible (NWT) and NIV are
> >almost same.
>
> No, they aren't. The NWT is a theologically slanted translation that
> frequently departs from the plain meaning of the Greek text in the
> interests of promoting JW theology. The NIV, though not without its
> problems, is at least a faithful translation of the Greek text. One
> example: the NWT translates John 8:58 as, "Before Abraham came into
> existence, I HAVE BEEN." To translate what the Greek really says --
> "before Abraham was born, I AM" -- would demolish JW's belief that
> Christ was not God, since Jesus would not be refering to himself as
> the I AM of Ex. 3:14. The NIV translates the verse correctly as
> "before Abraham was born, I AM!"
>
> Archangel
While I agree that the NWT is a poor translation slanted toward the JW's belife,
I also belive the NIV is slanted toward another, similar, belife. The difference
is that the NIV translators did not do it knowingly.
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:56:52 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 02:33:48 GMT, invi...@ihug.co.nz (Graeme Hunt)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Which Bible version
> >> >>is the inspired, preserved Word of God?
> >> >
> >> >None of them, they are translations of the inspired Word of God. Only
> >> >the original IS the inspired Word - the Hebrew, the Greek, and the
> >> >Aaramaic in some portions.
> >>
> >> I would say that English translations are also the inspired Word of
> >> God, but in a DERIVATIVE sense. The Scriptures as given in the
> >> original languages are inspired in a PRIMARY sense,
> >>
> >
> >Where is the basis for this in scripture? I know God said he would preserve
> >the scripture. I know of nothing that talks about two types of Bibles! Now,
> >you did not just make this up - did you?
>
> The Biblical basis for this is 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pet. 1:21. Read
> these verses and then ask yourself: "in what languages were these
> inspired scriptures given?" Then ponder the fact that nowhere in the
> Scriptures do we find an instance of an inspired written TRANSLATION
> from one language into another.
Where does it say God will NOT give his word to all of the nations of the World?
>
>
> Besides, I might ask you a similar question: where does it say in the
> Scriptures that God will preserve his word for English speaking people
> in a 17th C. English translation and no other?
I never said He did...
>
>
> Archangel
Kjasowen
>>Kjasowen
>>Was Erasmus a reformer?
>
>Archangel
>Nope. He was a Roman Catholic monk, and remained one until the day he
>died.
>
Kjasowen
Sorry! I disagree. If so, why the KJV translators chose Erasmus text? If he was
a Roman Catholic monk, I assure the KJV would reject his texts. The fact is if
he was a Roman Catholic monk, there is no record that he ever functioned as
such. Erasmus was a protestor!
Kjasowen
>Then you are also aware that since both the TR and W&H, we have
>discovered papyrus MSS that are older than the oldest texts behind
>both of them. This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
>27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
Kjasowen
Which one is more accurate? WH line or UBS 4 / NA 27 or the TR line?
I learned that 500 "TR" words come back in UBS 4 / NA 27.
>Archangel
>Really? So are we to "seek good" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
>(Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
>same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
>change!
>
Kjasowen
Read David Rea's note reflecting to the phrase, "seek good" in his post. I
assure you read it.
>Archangel
>But numbers alone don't tell the whole story.
Kjasowen
I have this numbers from the chart by Dr. D.A. Waite.
>Archangel
>One of the principles of textual criticism
>is, "manuscripts are to be WEIGHED, not COUNTED."
Kjasowen
That's what WH's interests are. The fact is that they favored "WEIGHED" rather
than the WITNESSES.
GI Trekker
apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
Do I detect a slight bias here? I don't think any translation of Scripture
since the original documents is going to be 100% perfect, but if those who are
working on it are prayerfully considering the material and working to glorify
God and make the Bible accessible to people today -- in a GREAT MANY languages
around the world, then I don't see the problem. Ultimately it is God who saves
people through Jesus -- not the Bible. That's just the guidebook, the roadmap,
as it were. And a roadmap doesn't have to show every painted line in the road.
It just has to help you get where you're going anyway and keep you on course.
Kjasowen
>How so?
Kjasowen
It is a scientific error. In Luke 23:45, the critical text uses the variant
"eklipontos", "was eclipsed", instead of the TR reading "eskotisthe", "was
darkened". It would have been a scientific impossibility for the sun to have
been eclipsed during the Passover since the moon was full.
>Archangel
> How can BOTH the Geneva Bible
>AND the KJV be "the inspired, preserved Word of God" in the English
>language when they are not the same? Remember, "things that are
>different are not the same." Furthermore, if the Geneva Bible IS the
>"inspired, preserved Word of God" in English, why was the KJV
>necessary when we already had the Word of God?
Kjasowen
>The Geneva 1557 Bible and the KJV are the inspired, preserved Word of God.
They are TR. I have the 1557 Geneva New Testament at home so I compared this to
the KJV, however I have no problem wth them.
>Archangel
>Ac. 8:37 is missing from the MAJORITY
>of ALL the Greek.
Kjasowen
The passage is found in Codex E (eighth century) and in several other
manuscripts. Also, it is in the Old Latin manuscripts (second to fourth
century) and the Vulgate of Jerome (fourth century). Still further, the passage
is cited by Irenaeus (202 AD) and Cyprian (258 AD). Thus, while not in the
majority of the Greek witness, it does have both early and wide range support.
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:34:35 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:44:42 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >mljr1 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I can't believe this argument exists....if people wanted to get back to the
> >> >> "one true version" they would only read Greek, Hebrew and Aramic. The KJV
> >> >> is a good version, but it is just that, a version.
> >> >
> >> >God said he would preserve his Word. The Bibles in question are NOT the same.
> >>
> >> Neither are the various editions of the KJV. In 1611, Psa. 69:32 in
> >> the KJV read, "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's
> >> KJVs the same Pslam reads, "...and your heart shall live that seek
> >> God." Which is the "preserved Word of God?" And how do you know
> >> this?
> >
> >'seeke goode' vs 'seek God' - is this an example of a change or a
> >typographical/spelling error. Before you answer keep in mind printing was a new
> >thing in 1611, & their was no standard spelling.
>
> That's just the point... we don't know, and CAN'T know, if this was an
> example of a deliberate change or a printing error. We don't have the
> translators notes or proofs -- so in effect, the "originals" behind
> the KJV are lost. So how do we know which KJV is right?
Common sense?
Are you willing to argue that the changes were something more than spelling? If so, what
is you basis for doing this? We all KNOW that spelling & grammer have changed, and the
examples you brought up do not indicate that there is anything more than these types of
corrections...
>
>
> >
> >I do not see the significance or validity of this attack on the KJV.
>
> The significance: it is not an "attack" on the KJV as much as it is
> pointing out the double standard found in so many KJV-Only arguments.
> The new versions are routinely faulted for being "different," and the
> question is asked, "which Bible is the right one, and how do we know?"
> Yet the SAME problem exists for the various editions of the KJV.
The NIV not only DOES read COMPLEATLY different, but it also uses differnet mss. You are
comparing apples w/ oranges in an attempt to argue your point.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >(the New KJV say that the path of salvation is diffucult, the KJV says it is
> >> >narrow) All of us, who are looking at this objectivly, would agree that these
> >> >two word MEAN tow diferent things!
> >>
> >> I assume you are talking about Mt. 7:14 --
> >>
> >> "Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth
> >> unto life, and few there be that find it." (KJV)
> >>
> >> "Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads
> >> to life, and there are few who find it." (NKJV)
> >>
> >> Both translations say the same thing using slightly different words --
> >> that the way leading to life is narrow and hard, and few will find it.
> >> So what exactly is the problem?
> >
> >Difficult means something different than narrow.
> >
> >It is difficult to climb over the mountan (few are ABLE to do), However, ANYONE WHO
> >WANTS TO can drive over the road cut through the pass - but it is very narrow, not
> >all roads in the mountans lead though to the other side, only one does.
> >
> >Salvation is not difficult, it is easy - however there is only one narrow way -
> >Jesus.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >So, if they are diferent, then one is wrong - Which one?
> >>
> >> Given that they both mean exactly the same thing,
> >
> >Is it difficult to become saved?
> >
> >> I assume you are
> >> asking which one has the wording closest to the original. What does
> >> the Greek text say? The word "stene" means "narrow,
According to Strongs :Strong's Number: 4728 Transliterated Word
Stenos
Adjective Definition 1.narrow, strait
It seems to also mean strait.....
> " and the word
> >> "tethlimmene" means "narrow, confined, constricted." So neither the
> >> KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
the mss behind the KJV use the greek word "Thlibo", it means to 1.to press (as grapes),
press hard upon 2.a compressed way a.narrow straitened, contracted 3.metaph. to
trouble, afflict, distress
But the BIG quesition is, "Is reciving the gift of eternal life narrow, or Difficult?"
IT IS NOT DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >Does that word mean difficult? No. The three words you listed above are all very
> >good words to discribe salvation. It is important to note that "narrow, confined,
> >constricted" all have a similar meaning. How do you figure that the neither the
> >KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
>
> Because the KJV uses the word "strait" and the NKJV uses the word
> "difficult," neither of which are the best translation of the Greek
> words in the text.
Now you are distorting the facts, look at the verse's YOU provided above! The first word
means strait or narrow. The second word in no way should be interpreted as difficult,
especialy in light of the context it is being used - salvation!
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
> >>
> >> Where did God say HOW He would preserve his Word? (Personally, I
> >> believe God preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS we have.)
> >
> >But the Greek & Hebrew mss we have now do not agree.
>
> All Greek MSS agree for around 90% of the text, so we know we have the
> original words in these cases. For the 10% where there is
> disagreement, we can determine the original reading by examining the
> MSS evidence and applying the principles of textual criticism.
Then why does the nestles text rely on only ONE mss in some readings?
>
>
> >Also, if you belive that the
> >mss were kept preserved, why could not the translated word also be preseved?
>
> God could have chosen to preserve the translated word. God could also
> have chosen to preserve all the MSS copies without variants, or even
> to preserve the original autographs. The issue, however, is not what
> God COULD have done, but what God actually DID. And God, in His
> wisdom, chose not to do any of these.
And your argument for this is that teh KJV does not agree with the "oldest" mss & is
therefore wrong, & therefore not Gods preserved Word? Right?
What if it is his preserved Word, and the mss that all disagree are NOT his word, but
corruptions?
How do you KNOW that God did not preserve his Word?
Why would God presevere his word in a bunch of old mss that do not even agree with one &
other? Do you not see a problem with this?
>
>
> >
> >> Where did God say he would preserve His Word exclusively in a 17th C.
> >> Anglican translation for English speaking people living at the end of
> >> the 20th C?
> >
> >I don't know, I never contended this.
> >
> >> Did the English speaking people not have the preserved
> >> Word of God before 1611?
> >
> >Yes & no. it existed, but much of it was not translated into english, english was a
> >new language in the centuries before 1611. As the english language developed, so did
> >the Word of God.
>
> The question, "did the English speaking people not have the preserved
> Word of God before 1611?" is a dangerous one (like Jesus' question
> about John the Baptist), and points out a fatal flaw in the KJV-Only
> position. If you answer "yes," then why was the KJV necessary, since
> people already had the preserved Word of God? If you say "no," then
> how is it that the entire English Reformation occurred without the
> Word of God in English?
I belive that this point in history we saw God providing the Bible to the English
Speaking world. If we found a New nation today, with a new language today, we would not
expect a Bible to fall from heaven compleatly translated & printed. Even with our modern
technology we could not produce the bible in this new language in what you or I would
call a "short" period of time. Now does this prove that God does not want to provide
these people a Bible that is His Word in thier own language?
>
>
> >You clearly would argue that they did not. They did not have these "new" mss that
> >are the word of God - according to you.
>
> No, I would argue that they had the Word of God in the English in
> Wycliffe's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible,
> Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great
> Bible as well as the KJV. They just didn't have that Word of God from
> the best Greek text availiable.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
> >> >
> >> >Of what, & acording to whom?
> >> >
> >> >The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
> >> >
> >> >How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
> >> >have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
> >>
> >> Compare them against the Greek and Hebrew text and go with the ones
> >> that give the best rendering.
> >
> >Which text? Why?
>
> Which text -- for the OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the NT:
> UBS 4 / NA 27. Why -- because they are based on the oldest and best
> MSS.
that dissagee with one and other...
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Do you take a verse & look at what all the Bibles say & base your "portrait" on
> >> >that? If you do there are dozens of verses in the Cult JW's Bible that agree
> >> >with the NIV, NASB, Ect. - So this won't work.
> >> >
> >> >How do you decide this?
> >> >
> >> >> is a Bible. KJV,
> >> >> NIV, NAS...it's an issue of preference.
> >> >>
> >> >> In actuality, the KJV was authorized by King James, a known homosexual.
> >> >
> >> >Its a good thing he was not one of the translators!
> >>
> >> True... but many of the KJV's translators were high church Anglicans
> >> who believed in things like infant baptism, episcopal church
> >> government, observing saints' days as holy days, wearing chausibles
> >> and using candles and incense, and using readings from the Apocrypha
> >> as scripture in public worship.
> >
> >And the implication is?......
> >
> >So if a modern day translator were, say a member of the occult, would that effect
> >your opinion of the translated work?
>
> This is another example of the double standard at work in the KJV-Only
> position.
No it is just a question.
> If any Greek text or modern version is even remotely
> associated with someone suspected of unorthodox theology
Wescott & Hort were not "susspected" thier own words proved that they were members of the
occult.
> , this is
> immediate grounds for condemning that text or version. Not so when
> those of questionable orthodoxy are KJV translators, however!
Which of the KJV translators were known members of the occult?
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> It
> >> >> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
> >> >> now have.
> >> >
> >> >Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did.
> >>
> >> They didn't have access to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And they most
> >> certainly didn't have access to any of the papyrus MSS discovered in
> >> the 19th and 20th C.
> >
> >What were the mss you used to justify the use of "B" & "A" throughout the centuries?
> >Why did they not use these?
>
> Because the KJV translators didn't have access to those MSS either.
But these mss were used all over & preserved?
When I argue the mss were worthless & not coppied & used - you argue they were coppied &
used extensivly.
When I argure that the KJV translators must have then rejected them - you argue they did
not have "access" to them.
So, were they widly coppied & used or not?
Why is this? These were some of the most educated men in the World. How did these valuble
mss, that were widly used escape them?
>
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> I love the KJV though.
> >> >>
> >> >> Let this argument end.
> >> >
> >> >The argument will never end, I do not belive you understand the gravity of the
> >> >situation.
> >>
> >> I love the KJV too, and use it as one of my three main English
> >> translations in my own personal study. However, I have no illusions
> >> about its problems and limitations.
> >>
> >> Archangel
> >
> >I can see some problems & limitations, but none that cannot be overcome by STUDY. I
> >however see & understand the attack the enemy is making on us with these new
> >Bibles.
> >
> But when the KJV is clearly in error (as it is in including spurious
> verses like 1 Jn. 5:7 or mistranslating Heb. 10:23 as "faith" instead
> of "hope'), or when ANY other translation is in error, for that
> matter, then we have a responsibility to point out what the Word of
> God actually says.
>
Are we confessing our hope or our faith. This is the only time the KJV translates this
word as faith, but as you know, the greek words have diferent meanings than the english
ones. It is the translators job to pick the english word that best represents the meaning
of the original greek word in the context the greek word was used.
You see this as wrong, but it is your subjective opinion - and nothing more.
> Archangel
David Rea
GI Trekker wrote:
> If you use the modern versions such as NIV, NASB, CEV, why do you defend the
> apostates who produced them and reject Christians who defend the KJV?
>
> Do I detect a slight bias here? I don't think any translation of Scripture
> since the original documents is going to be 100% perfect, but if those who are
> working on it are prayerfully considering the material and working to glorify
> God and make the Bible accessible to people today -- in a GREAT MANY languages
> around the world, then I don't see the problem.
Even if they are distorting the Word of God in the process?
> Ultimately it is God who saves
> people through Jesus -- not the Bible.
> That's just the guidebook, the roadmap,
> as it were. And a roadmap doesn't have to show every painted line in the road.
> It just has to help you get where you're going anyway and keep you on course.
At what point, when altering the map, does it become imposible to reach the
desitination?
If I could show you in the bible (new ones) where it is acceptable for a person
who has not accepted Jesus to be baptised would that bother you? They do say
this...
Whould a verse saying, or VERY STRONGLY IMPLYING, Jesus was NOT perfect & commited
sin bother you? They all do say this...
Or how about altering the biography of Satan in the OT & replacing his name
(Lucifer) with the phrase "the morning star" - a phrase refering to our Lord &
Savior, Jesus. Whould that bother you? They all do this...
How many of these changes need to be made before we are offended? 50? 1000? How
many?
In my book 1 is too many...
But I'm just a dumb ol' county simpleton...
Archangel
Read any biography of Erasmus. He was indeed a Roman Cathoic monk,
entering the Augustinian order in 1487, and being ordained as a Roman
Catholic priest in 1492. Though often sharply critical of his Church,
he remained a Roman Catholic all his life, and as one biographer puts
it, "passed away in Basle on July 12, 1536, fortified by the
sacraments of the Church."
Archangel
Archangel
>>Archangel
>>Then you are also aware that since both the TR and W&H, we have
>>discovered papyrus MSS that are older than the oldest texts behind
>>both of them. This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
>>27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
>
>Kjasowen
>Which one is more accurate? WH line or UBS 4 / NA 27 or the TR line?
>
>I learned that 500 "TR" words come back in UBS 4 / NA 27.
I don't know the exact number, but you are correct about certain TR
readings. As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
B, and adopted readings they should not have. This is why no text
critic today uses the W&H text. The MSS evidence demonstrates that
it, like the TR, is flawed and in need of correction.
>
>>Archangel
>>Really? So are we to "seek good" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
>>(Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
>>same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
>>change!
>>
>
>Kjasowen
>Read David Rea's note reflecting to the phrase, "seek good" in his post. I
>assure you read it.
>
>>Archangel
>>But numbers alone don't tell the whole story.
>
>Kjasowen
>I have this numbers from the chart by Dr. D.A. Waite.
>
>>Archangel
>>One of the principles of textual criticism
>>is, "manuscripts are to be WEIGHED, not COUNTED."
>
>Kjasowen
>That's what WH's interests are. The fact is that they favored "WEIGHED" rather
>than the WITNESSES.
Think this through. What carries more "weight" as a witness -- 100
MSS made a thousand years after the original, or a single MSS made a
mere hundred years after the original? What carries more "weight" as
a witness -- 100 MS that are 20th generation copies of an original, or
a single MS that is a mere two generations from the original? And
consider the MSS evidence itself. Does it not strike you as
significant that EVERY early MS we have (i.e., before the 5th C.) is
of the Alexandrian or Western text type, while NONE are of the
Byzantine text type (the one behind the TR / KJV?)
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 12 Oct 1999 04:31:07 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>Archangel
>> >>Sorry, but the KJV is not THE accurate Bible for English speaking
>> >>people.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >You sound like that you are on the WH side.
>>
>> I am on the side of the truth as it pertains to the Word of God. The
>> KJV is accurate in many places, less accurate in others, and in error
>> in others. That is simply a fact.
>>
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >> I would recommend reading several different
>> >>translations, and for serious study of the Scriptures learning Greek
>> >>and Hebrew to read the text in the original languages.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >I studied on the textual criticism course, "Inspiration and Canonicity." I
>> >learned about the TR side and WH side. I am aware of their Greek texts and
>> >their MSS.
>>
>> Then you are also aware that since both the TR and W&H, we have
>> discovered papyrus MSS that are older than the oldest texts behind
>> both of them. This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
>> 27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
>>
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>I might also point out that the KJV itself went through numerous
>> >>revisions between its initial publication in 1611 and its final
>> >>revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769. I might ask which of these
>> >>different KJV's is the Word of God, and how you know?
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >The 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV are nothing wrong and are the Word of God,
>> >however they were revised if necessary, to improve by right spelling or better
>> >grammar. One IMPORTANT thing is that they NEVER change ANY DOCTRINES of Bible.
>>
>> Really? So are we to "seek good"
>
>That is not what the verse you quoted said. It said "seeke goode". Why are you
>assuming it means seek good? What are you basing this on? If their was no
>standardized spelling in the 1600's, how do you know what a misspelled word means?
>Could not the later version be a spelling correction? God & Good sound very similar,
Not really... and even if they did, "God" and "goode" (with a lower
case "g" and an extra "o" and "e") do not LOOK similar.
>so is it a change in the text, or a correction in spelling? Prove your case!
But that's my point. We don't know, and we CAN'T know. The KJV
"originals" are lost.
>
>> (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
>> (Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
>> same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
>> change!
>
>Prove your assumtion that goode = good NOT God. Remember, you cannot use 19th &
>20th century rules of spelling - they did not exist!
The COMBINATION of (1) no captial "G", (2) an extra "o", and (3) the
fact that "God" is not misspelled elsewhere in the 1611 KJV strongly
suggests that "goode" is a spelling variation of "good" rather than
"God." At any rate, it can't be conclusively proven that either
"goode" = "good" OR "goode" = "God." So we are STILL left not knowing
which KJV is the right one.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:54:30 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Archangel wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 11 Oct 1999 00:14:54 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>> >>
How do you KNOW this?
>other verses are
>cut - so we cannot realy tell what is going on.
Exactly. And because we do not and cannot KNOW, we are left with
uncertainty. Which KJV is right?
>
>For example the word YEE & he could be the same, you have to remember that their was no
>standardized spelling at this time & printing was a new thing, subject to many errors.
>While the translators may have wrote Gode, the printers may have, in error, added
>another "o".
They would also have had to change the "G" to a "g." How likely is it
that the printers are going to make TWO printing mistakes in the same
word? Particularly when that word is the one referring to the
Almighty? Additionally, the word "Gode" doesn't appear anywhere else
in the 1611 KJV, so why would it be spelled that way here and here
alone?
> It is important to note that each letter had to be individualy inserted
>into the printing press, the letters were also seen backwards & thus it was hard to
>reproduce a book (print) accuratly. Are these "errors" printing, spelling, or are they
>legitimate changes in the wording?
>
>Do you have a copy of the script that was sent to the press?
Nobody does. The "originals" for the KJV don't exist.
>Do you have an
>understanding of the variations of the spellings of the words?
No, I don't. And that is PRECISELY my point. NOBODY knows for
certain. So how can we be sure which KJV is correct?
Archangel
Archangel
>>Archangel
>>How so?
>
>Kjasowen
>It is a scientific error. In Luke 23:45, the critical text uses the variant
>"eklipontos", "was eclipsed", instead of the TR reading "eskotisthe", "was
>darkened". It would have been a scientific impossibility for the sun to have
>been eclipsed during the Passover since the moon was full.
God did the "scientifically impossible" by stopping the sun from
moving (Josh. 10:12) and apparently by even making it move backward (2
Kg. 20:11). Again I have to ask, are you saying that a God who can
make the sun stand still and move backward can't also cause an eclipse
to happen during a full moon?
>
>>Archangel
> > How can BOTH the Geneva Bible
>>AND the KJV be "the inspired, preserved Word of God" in the English
>>language when they are not the same? Remember, "things that are
>>different are not the same." Furthermore, if the Geneva Bible IS the
>>"inspired, preserved Word of God" in English, why was the KJV
>>necessary when we already had the Word of God?
>
>Kjasowen
>The Geneva 1557 Bible and the KJV are the inspired, preserved Word of God.
>They are TR. I have the 1557 Geneva New Testament at home so I compared this to
>the KJV, however I have no problem wth them.
Compare Heb. 10:23 in your Geneva Bible and your KJV. One says
"profession of HOPE," the other says "profession of FAITH." If it's
true that "things that are different are not the same," then which of
these two different versions is the "inspired, preserved Word of God?"
>
>>Archangel
>>Ac. 8:37 is missing from the MAJORITY
>>of ALL the Greek.
>
>Kjasowen
>The passage is found in Codex E (eighth century) and in several other
>manuscripts. Also, it is in the Old Latin manuscripts (second to fourth
>century) and the Vulgate of Jerome (fourth century). Still further, the passage
>is cited by Irenaeus (202 AD) and Cyprian (258 AD). Thus, while not in the
>majority of the Greek witness, it does have both early and wide range support.
Not really. In terms of EARLY support, it is not found in ANY extant
Greek MSS or early version before the 6th C, though it is cited by
Irenaeus (in Gaul) and Cyprian (in North Africa.) In terms of WIDE
RANGING support, it is found ONLY in the Latin West before the 6th C.
Conclusion: Acts 8:37 was not originally part of the Book of Acts, but
an early Western addition that eventually found its way into the TR /
KJV.
Certain questions have to be asked about Acts 8:37:
(1) If it is original, why would it be removed? Why is it missing
from the majority of Greek MSS, including not only the earliest and
best MSS, but also the majority of later MSS? What would account for
its slender attestation in the Byzantine / Antiochene MS tradition?
Why is it not known by Ambrose or Chysostom, or for that matter anyone
in the Eastern Church?
(2) If it is original, why are there two different versions of the
verse in the MS tradition? The first version (found in E and Old
Latin e) is, "And Philip said to him, 'If you believe with all your
heart, you will be saved.' And he answered and said, 'I believe in
Christ the Son of God.'" The second version (found in eight
minuscules, three lectionaries, and ten Old Latin MSS, the Clementine
Vulgate, Irenaeus, and Cyprian) is, "And he said to him, 'If you
believe with your whole heart, it is lawful.' And he answered and
said, 'I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.'" Furthermore,
why does the TR / KJV combine these two different readings the way it
does?
(3) Why are other readings in Acts with far better "early and wide
ranging support" than Acts 8:37 not also found in the TR / KJV?
Examples: "You spoke BY THE HOLY SPIRIT through the mouth of Your
servant, OUR FATHER David" (Ac. 4:25); "they tried to enter Bithynia,
but the Spirit OF JESUS would not allow them" (Ac. 16:7).
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
I am arguing that we have absolutely no way of knowing whether these
changes are more than spellng or not... which still leaves us with the
unresolved question, "WHICH KJV?"
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I do not see the significance or validity of this attack on the KJV.
>>
>> The significance: it is not an "attack" on the KJV as much as it is
>> pointing out the double standard found in so many KJV-Only arguments.
>> The new versions are routinely faulted for being "different," and the
>> question is asked, "which Bible is the right one, and how do we know?"
>> Yet the SAME problem exists for the various editions of the KJV.
>
>The NIV not only DOES read COMPLEATLY different, but it also uses differnet mss. You are
>comparing apples w/ oranges in an attempt to argue your point.
I am arguing that not only does the NIV read differently from the KJV,
but the KJV (1611) also reads differently from the KJV (1769). And if
the question "which Bible?" applies to new versions, it applies
equally to the different versions of the KJV.
Strong's in not a good Greek lexicon. Try the Bauer-Gingrich-Danker
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament." "Strait" is NOT a
definition of "stene."
>
>> " and the word
>> >> "tethlimmene" means "narrow, confined, constricted." So neither the
>> >> KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
>
>the mss behind the KJV use the greek word "Thlibo", it means to 1.to press (as grapes),
>press hard upon 2.a compressed way a.narrow straitened, contracted 3.metaph. to
>trouble, afflict, distress
>
>But the BIG quesition is, "Is reciving the gift of eternal life narrow, or Difficult?"
>
>IT IS NOT DIFFICULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It depends. Jesus said something about it being easier for a camel to
go through the eye on a needle than for a rich man to enter the
Kingdom of God.
>
>> >
>> >Does that word mean difficult? No. The three words you listed above are all very
>> >good words to discribe salvation. It is important to note that "narrow, confined,
>> >constricted" all have a similar meaning. How do you figure that the neither the
>> >KJV nor the NKJV has it completely correct.
>>
>> Because the KJV uses the word "strait" and the NKJV uses the word
>> "difficult," neither of which are the best translation of the Greek
>> words in the text.
>
>Now you are distorting the facts, look at the verse's YOU provided above! The first word
>means strait or narrow. The second word in no way should be interpreted as difficult,
>especialy in light of the context it is being used - salvation!
The two Greek words mean "narrow" and "constricted." Neither of them
mean "strait" or "difficult." Hence my observation that neither the
KJV nor the NKJV have the best translation.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Remember God said he would preserve his Word.
>> >>
>> >> Where did God say HOW He would preserve his Word? (Personally, I
>> >> believe God preserved His Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS we have.)
>> >
>> >But the Greek & Hebrew mss we have now do not agree.
>>
>> All Greek MSS agree for around 90% of the text, so we know we have the
>> original words in these cases. For the 10% where there is
>> disagreement, we can determine the original reading by examining the
>> MSS evidence and applying the principles of textual criticism.
>
>Then why does the nestles text rely on only ONE mss in some readings?
Can you give a specific example?
>
>>
>>
>> >Also, if you belive that the
>> >mss were kept preserved, why could not the translated word also be preseved?
>>
>> God could have chosen to preserve the translated word. God could also
>> have chosen to preserve all the MSS copies without variants, or even
>> to preserve the original autographs. The issue, however, is not what
>> God COULD have done, but what God actually DID. And God, in His
>> wisdom, chose not to do any of these.
>
>And your argument for this is that teh KJV does not agree with the "oldest" mss & is
>therefore wrong, & therefore not Gods preserved Word? Right?
Yes, although I would still say that the KJV is the Word of God.
>
>What if it is his preserved Word, and the mss that all disagree are NOT his word, but
>corruptions?
The evidence is against it. NO Greek MS of ANY kind has "book of
life" instead of "tree of life" in Rev. 22:19, yet the KJV has it.
How can the KJV be correct about a reading not supported by ANY Greek
MS?
>
>How do you KNOW that God did not preserve his Word?
God did preserve His Word -- in the Greek and Hebrew MSS.
>
>Why would God presevere his word in a bunch of old mss that do not even agree with one &
>other? Do you not see a problem with this?
Think this through. The MSS behind the TR / KJV also do not agree
with one another. Do you see a problem with that?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Where did God say he would preserve His Word exclusively in a 17th C.
>> >> Anglican translation for English speaking people living at the end of
>> >> the 20th C?
>> >
>> >I don't know, I never contended this.
>> >
>> >> Did the English speaking people not have the preserved
>> >> Word of God before 1611?
>> >
>> >Yes & no. it existed, but much of it was not translated into english, english was a
>> >new language in the centuries before 1611. As the english language developed, so did
>> >the Word of God.
>>
>> The question, "did the English speaking people not have the preserved
>> Word of God before 1611?" is a dangerous one (like Jesus' question
>> about John the Baptist), and points out a fatal flaw in the KJV-Only
>> position. If you answer "yes," then why was the KJV necessary, since
>> people already had the preserved Word of God? If you say "no," then
>> how is it that the entire English Reformation occurred without the
>> Word of God in English?
>
>I belive that this point in history we saw God providing the Bible to the English
>Speaking world. If we found a New nation today, with a new language today, we would not
>expect a Bible to fall from heaven compleatly translated & printed. Even with our modern
>technology we could not produce the bible in this new language in what you or I would
>call a "short" period of time. Now does this prove that God does not want to provide
>these people a Bible that is His Word in thier own language?
Let me try it this way -- if I were and English speaking person living
in the year 1600, and I wanted to read the Word of God in my own
language, which Bible would I read?
>
>>
>>
>> >You clearly would argue that they did not. They did not have these "new" mss that
>> >are the word of God - according to you.
>>
>> No, I would argue that they had the Word of God in the English in
>> Wycliffe's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Taverner's Bible, Matthew's Bible,
>> Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Great
>> Bible as well as the KJV. They just didn't have that Word of God from
>> the best Greek text availiable.
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Any version of the Bible that paints an accurate portrait
>> >> >
>> >> >Of what, & acording to whom?
>> >> >
>> >> >The JW's belive thier New World Translation is correct.
>> >> >
>> >> >How do you determine what this "accurate portrait" is? What do you use? If you
>> >> >have 5 Bibles, all with slightly diferent angles, which do you use?
>> >>
>> >> Compare them against the Greek and Hebrew text and go with the ones
>> >> that give the best rendering.
>> >
>> >Which text? Why?
>>
>> Which text -- for the OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the NT:
>> UBS 4 / NA 27. Why -- because they are based on the oldest and best
>> MSS.
>
>that dissagee with one and other...
ALL MSS disagree with each other. No two MSS agree with each other
completely. You seem not to understand this basic fact about the
Greek MS evidence.
There were the same number of "occultists" among the KJV translators
as there were among the members of the committee that produced the UBS
4 / NA 27, or the NIV -- none. But I suppose you have no problem with
the fact that the TR was the product of a Roman Catholic monk who
wrote a treatise defending the doctrine of transubstantiation? Or
that many of the KJV translators, though not "occultists," were
incense-burning, baby-baptizing, Apocrypha-reading believers in church
government by bishops?
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> It
>> >> >> did not have access yet to some of the most reliable Greek MSS's, which we
>> >> >> now have.
>> >> >
>> >> >Like what? Like the Vaticanus & Sinaticus? They did.
>> >>
>> >> They didn't have access to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. And they most
>> >> certainly didn't have access to any of the papyrus MSS discovered in
>> >> the 19th and 20th C.
>> >
>> >What were the mss you used to justify the use of "B" & "A" throughout the centuries?
>> >Why did they not use these?
>>
>> Because the KJV translators didn't have access to those MSS either.
>
>But these mss were used all over & preserved?
No. They were used and preserved, yes; but they were not used all
over. No single MSS was used everywhere.
>
>When I argue the mss were worthless & not coppied & used - you argue they were coppied &
>used extensivly.
No. I argued that they continued to be used and copied, although not
extensively.
>When I argure that the KJV translators must have then rejected them - you argue they did
>not have "access" to them.
>
>So, were they widly coppied & used or not?
They were copied and used well into the 14th C. They were not WIDELY
used, however.
We are professing our hope, because THAT'S WHAT THE TEXT SAYS!
>This is the only time the KJV translates this
>word as faith, but as you know, the greek words have diferent meanings than the english
>ones. It is the translators job to pick the english word that best represents the meaning
>of the original greek word in the context the greek word was used.
Agreed -- and the KJV translators blew it here.
>
>You see this as wrong, but it is your subjective opinion - and nothing more.
Four reasons why the KJV's rendering of "elpidos" as "faith" in Heb.
10:23 is wrong:
(1) The Greek word "elpidos" is the genitive singular form of the noun
"elpis", which means "hope." The Greek word for "faith" is "pistis."
Note that the word "pistis" appears in Heb. 10:23 along with the word
"elpidos", and it is correctly translated "faithful."
(2) In all other places in the NT where the word "elpis" appears, the
KJV translators render it as "hope," not "faith" (Acts. 2:26; 16:19;
23:6; 24:15; 26:6,7; 27:20; 28:20; Rom. 4:18; 5:2,4,5;
8:20,24;12:12;15:4,13(x2); 1 Cor. 9:10;13:13; 2 Cor. 1:7; 3:12; 10:15;
Gal. 5:5; Eph. 1:8; 2:12; 4:4; Phil. 1:20; Col. 1:5,23,27; 1 Thess.
1:3; 2:19; 4:13; 5:8; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:2; 2:13; 3:7;
Heb. 3:6; 6:11,18; 7:19; 1 Pet. 1:3,21; 3:15; 1 Jn. 3:3). The only
place in the KJV where "elpis" is translated "faith" is Heb. 10:23.
(3) Every other English translation of Heb. 10:23 I am aware of
renders "elpidos" as "hope," not "faith" --
"In this confidence let us hold on to the hope that we profess without
the slightest hesitation -- for he is utterly dependable..." (Philips)
"Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for
he who has promised is faithful" (NRSV)
"Let us hold on firmly to the hope we profess, because we can trust
God to keep his promise." (TEV)
"Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised
is faithful." (NIV)
"Let us keep firm in the hope we profess, because the one who made the
promise is faithful." (Jerusalem Bible)
"Let us be firm and unswerving in the confession of our hope, for the
Giver of the promise may be trusted." (NEB)
"Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for
He who promised is faithful." (NASB)
"Let us be firm and unswerving in the confession of our hope, for the
giver of the promise is to be trusted." (REB)
This includes English translations pre-dating the KJV
"Let vs kepe the profession of oure hope, with oute waveringe (for he
is faythfull that promysed)" (Tyndale, 1534)
"Let us kepe the profession of oure hope without wauerynge (for he is
faithfull that hath promysed)" (Coverdale, 1535)
"Let vs kepe the profefsion of our hope, without wauering (for he is
faithful that promifed)" (Geneva Bible, 1560)
I am aware of NO other English translation that renders "elpidos" in
Heb. 10:23 as "faith" rather than "hope."
(4) The KJV's translation of "elpidos" as "faith" in Heb. 10:23 breaks
up the sequence of "faith" ("pisteos", v.22), "hope" ("elpidos," v.
23) and "love" ("agape", v. 24)
"...assurance of faith..."
"...confession of our hope..."
"...to provoke one another to love..." (NRSV)
"...assurance of faith" ...
"...profession of our faith..."
"...to provoke unto love..." (KJV)
Conclusion: The KJV's rendering of "elpidos" as "faith" in Heb. 10:23
is a poor translation at best, an error in translation at worst.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
This last claim is incorrect for a number of reasons.
(1) The passage you are referring to in Isa. 14 is about the king of
Babylon (Isa. 14:4), not Satan. Later tradition came to interpret it
as a description of the fall of Satan.
(2) The word "Lucifer" is the Latin word for "light-bearer," and is
NOT found in the Hebrew text of Isa. 14:12. Jerome chose to translate
the Hebrew word "heylel" as "Lucifer" in his influential Latin
Vulgate, and from that the tradition developed of Lucifer being one of
Satan's names.
(3) The Hebrew word "heylel" in Isa. 14:12 actually means "day star"
or "morning star." Even the KJV translators knew this, which is why
the original 1611 KJV had a note in the margin beside Isa. 14:12 which
read, "Or, daystarre."
Bottom line: the correct English translation of Isa. 14:12 is "morning
star" or "day star." The modern versions have the proper translation;
the KJV does not.
Archangel
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:15:07 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> On 12 Oct 1999 04:31:07 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>Archangel
> >Seeke also does not look like seek... We are assuming.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >so is it a change in the text, or a correction in spelling? Prove your case!
> >>
> >> But that's my point. We don't know, and we CAN'T know. The KJV
> >> "originals" are lost.
> >
> >Sure we can! we can look at the text it is translated from! Is the word that was
> >translated as "goode" mean God or Good?
>
> All right, we are in agreement here. You are saying that we can
> appeal to the Greek and Hebrew text to correct the KJV. I have
> encountered people who believe that the KJV is the "final authority,"
> and there is no need to "go to the Greek." You are obviously not one
> of them. O:-) That being the case, we CAN theoretically know "which
> KJV," because whenever there is a disagreement
I do not agree that thier is a dissagreement! I would rather call it an anomoly. The word in
question does not fit ANY word we know of in our language today. We have three ways of
determining its meaning: 1: a study of old litriture & spelling, 2: a study of the original
greek, 3: common sense.
> among different
> editions, we can compare them against the Greek text from which it was
> translated.
>
> However, all of this only serves to move the question back one step,
> because in the case of the KJV there is no single Greek text followed
> by the translators. They used various editions of the TR, all of
> which disagreed among themselves. Now we have to ask the question,
> "Which TR?"
>
> Let me give some specific examples:
>
> Lk. 2:22 reads "her purification" in Beza (all 9 editions) and the
> KJV; but it reads "their purification" in Erasmus (all 5 editions) and
> Stephanus (all 4 editions). So is the KJV correct or not? Which TR
> do we appeal to?
>
> Jn. 1:28 reads "Bethabara beyond Jordan" in Erasmus (all 5 eds.),
> Stephanus (3rd and 4th eds.), Beza (all 9 eds.) and the KJV; but it
> reads "Bethany beyond Jordan" in Stephanus (1st and 2nd eds.) Is the
> KJV correct? Which TR?
>
> Rom. 12:11 reads "serving the Lord" in Erasmus (1st. ed.), Beza (all 9
> eds.), and the KJV; but it reads "serving the time" in Erasmus (2nd,
> 3rd, 4th, and 5th eds.) and Stephanus (all eds.) Is the KJV correct?
> Which TR?
>
> And then there's our old friend Lk. 17:36. This verse is NOT found in
> Erasmus (all eds.) and Stephanus (1st, 2nd, and 3rd eds.); but it IS
> found in Beza (all eds.), Stephanus (4th ed.), and the KJV. Is the
> KJV correct? Which TR? And how do you KNOW?
>
> Archangel
I would need to study this out more, I am not familier with these diferent versions you
speak of, but I did notice from your post that the Beza always agrees with the KJV. I do not
know if this has any significance.
David Rea
Kjasowen wrote:
> >Vernon O
> >KJV only means that those who adhere to it believe KJV to be the only or
> >most nearly accurate translation of the bible.
>
> Kjasowen
> Many people accused the KJV defenders about using the KJV, however they do not
> really understand what the term, "only" defines and refers. You know, they talk
> about "onlyism" or "onlyist" or "using only KJV' or "KJV only", however these
> cause the confusion, "which one do you believe?" There are 3 meanings for you
> read here:
>
> 1. The KJV only refers to that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek
> texts because the KJV defenders said that the KJV corrected them. This view
> was taught by Peter Ruckman.
>
> 2. The KJV only refers to that there is no translation in Russian, Spainish,
> Japanese or any other language in the world. This means that any foreigners
> from their own country out of the USA MUST read the English Bible, the KJV.
> This view was taught by Dr. Samuel Gipp.
>
> 3. The KJV only refers to the Hebrew (including Aramaic) and Greek texts that
> underline the KJV. The KJV is the most accurate translation available in
> English language today. This view does not use "only" in the literal sense of
> "solely and exclusively." Non-English speaking people use accurate translations
> in their own language. This view was taught by Pastor D.A. Waite including Dean
> John William Burgon.
>
> Which one are you, the KJV defenders?
#3
DR
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:39:50 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
wrote:>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 14 Oct 1999 04:23:33 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>Archangel
>> >>Then you are also aware that since both the TR and W&H, we have
>> >>discovered papyrus MSS that are older than the oldest texts behind
>> >>both of them. This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
>> >>27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >Which one is more accurate? WH line or UBS 4 / NA 27 or the TR line?
>> >
>> >I learned that 500 "TR" words come back in UBS 4 / NA 27.
>>
>> I don't know the exact number, but you are correct about certain TR
>> readings. As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
>> B, and adopted readings they should not have.
>
Agreed, but they are still in circulation! When GMC produces a defective product they have a recall - even if the product is years old! How much more important is the Bible! Why should we not have a recall of these defective Bibles? We all agree that the text they are based on is wrong!>But, the entire time they were 100% convinced that they were right! Bibles were
>translated & argured to be the VERY WORD OF GOD! & more accurate than the KJV. They
>were wrong.No, they were more accurate than the TR / KJV in most places where the
two differed, but not in ALL places.>
>Where is the call to recall the flawed bibles? We all know that they are translated
>from incorrect texts! EVERYONE now agrees with this! So why are we not pulling
>these from the shelves?Because no Bibles based on the W&H text have been printed for decades.
As I've said before, NOBODY today uses the W&H text as the basis for a
Bible translation.
>
>
>> This is why no text
>> critic today uses the W&H text. The MSS evidence demonstrates that
>> it, like the TR, is flawed and in need of correction.
>>
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>Really? So are we to "seek good" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV) or "seek God"
>> >>(Psa. 69:32, 1769 KJV)? If "things that are different are not the
>> >>same," then that would seem to be a fairly significant doctrinal
>> >>change!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >Read David Rea's note reflecting to the phrase, "seek good" in his post. I
>> >assure you read it.
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>But numbers alone don't tell the whole story.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >I have this numbers from the chart by Dr. D.A. Waite.
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>One of the principles of textual criticism
>> >>is, "manuscripts are to be WEIGHED, not COUNTED."
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >That's what WH's interests are. The fact is that they favored "WEIGHED" rather
>> >than the WITNESSES.
>>
>> Think this through. What carries more "weight" as a witness -- 100
>> MSS made a thousand years after the original, or a single MSS made a
To what extent? Are there 5000+ disagreement in the TR?>> mere hundred years after the original?
>
>You left a part out: "that disagrees in over 3000 places with other mss that are
>just 100 years old"Of the 5,000-plus complete and partial Greek MSS extant today, no two
are in complete agreement with each other. *ALL* Greek MSS disagree
with one another, and that includes the MSS behind the TR / KJV.
You
seem not to be aware of this. When *ALL* the MSS disagree, it is the
AGREEMENTS between them that are used to determine the best reading.
>
>> What carries more "weight" as
>> a witness -- 100 MS that are 20th generation copies of an original, or
>> a single MS that is a mere two generations from the original?
>
>that dissagres with other "older" & "better" mss.
>
>> And
>> consider the MSS evidence itself. Does it not strike you as
>> significant that EVERY early MS we have (i.e., before the 5th C.) is
>> of the Alexandrian or Western text type, while NONE are of the
>> Byzantine text type (the one behind the TR / KJV?)
>>
>
Which copies are you refering to that lasted & were used for 1800 years?>What are these mss made of?
Most were made of papyrus; some were made of parchment.
>How durable is it?
The evidence suggests that both papyrus and parchment were at least as
durable as paper.>How long does a USED copy last?
Some used copies lasted 1800 years.
10% is a BIG number! Thats one out of 10 words compleatly wrong! Thats one out of 10 verses compleatly wrong! 10% is NOT a small number.>Why
>don't these early MSS agree? Why are thier so many disagreements? If they are so
>accurate you would think that they would be in more of an agreement. Right?But they DO agree for around 90% of the text! For MSS made in the
pre-Constantinian era when Christianity was a persecuted minority
religion and copies had to be made privately, at personal expense,
under uncontrolled conditions without the use of professional scribes
or scriptoria, it's amazing there wasn't MORE disagreement!
Archangel
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On 16 Oct 1999 04:31:19 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> >>Archangel
> >> As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
> >>B,
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >Right, you got it. Why B manuscript?
>
> Because they thought it was *THE* best early witness to the original
> text of the NT.
and why did they belive this?
>
>
> >
> >>Archangel
> >>This is why no text
> >>critic today uses the W&H text.
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >I refer the WH text to the Greek text. The apostates still use it, not ERV
> >because ERV is no longer for today. I saw WH Greek text in some Christian
> >bookstores.
>
> The W&H Greek text is used today for scholarly and historical reasons,
> but NOT as the basis of any Bible translations.
what use would it have if it were known to be wrong?
Is it not odd that the foundation of these new texts is the W/H text & it is
now proven wrong?
>
>
> >
> >>Archangel
> >>This is why the modern Greek NT text of the UBS 4 / NA
> >>>>27 differs from BOTH the TR and W&H.
> >>>
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >Which one is UBS 4 / NA 27? The WH line or the TR line?
>
> The UBS 4 / NA 27 are critical texts that determine readings based on
> the entirety of MS evidence.
>
> >
> >>Archangel
> >> What carries more "weight" as a witness -- 100
> >>MSS made a thousand years after the original, or a single MSS made a
> >>mere hundred years after the original?
> >>What carries more "weight" as
> >>a witness -- 100 MS that are 20th generation copies of an original, or
> >>a single MS that is a mere two generations from the original?
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >You favor the term, "weight" as a witness. Do you reject the early church
> >fathers who witnessed these MSS?
>
> I do not reject them, but I do give them less "weight." Patristic
> citations rank as SECONDARY witnesses to the NT text, the PRIMARY
> witnesses being actual Greek MSS. Quotations from the Church Fathers
> must be used with EXTREME caution, and ONLY from critical editions.
>
> In evaluating any patristic quotation from the Scriptures (especially
> from the Gospels), certain questions must be asked.
>
> (1) Questions about the quotation itself: does the ancient Father
> quote the passage in its entirety or just partially? In the case of
> the Gospels, does he quote it unambiguously and clearly identify the
> writer? Or is it possible he is referring to a parallel passage from
> another Gospel? Does he quote it from an actual manuscript he had in
> front of him or does he quote it from memory? Is it an exact
> quotation or is it a loose quotation? Does it show any evidence of
> harmonization? (People today still refer to the story of the "rich
> young ruler," even though no Gospel mentions such a person!) How does
> the Father typically quote the Scriptures throughout his works?
> Precisely and rigorously, with no variation? Or freely and loosely,
> with the same passage being quoted in different ways?
>
> (2) Questions about the ancient Father's actual work itself: was it
> written in Greek or Latin? (Latin quotations from the Scriptures may
> be less reliable because they are one language removed from the Greek
> original.) How many extant copies of the work where the Scriptural
> quotation is found? How old are they? Do they all agree, or are
> there variants among the various copies of the works? (MSS copies of
> a Father's work suffered the same transcriptional problems as the
> Greek MSS of the NT did. Later copyists may have accidentally or
> intentionally added or removed something.) Is there any evidence that
> later scribes who copied the Father's work changed or altered it in
> any way? (Later copyists may have changed the original and
> "corrected" it to read more like the predominant Byzantine text.) Has
> a critical edition of the Father's work been prepared where the best
> text of the original work has been established, and all variants with
> supporting MS evidence listed in a critical apparatus?
>
> Archangel
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On 16 Oct 1999 04:45:33 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>
> >>Archangel
> >>"WHICH KJV?"
> >>
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >The Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the Oxford KJV.
>
> How do you know this?
>
> >
> >>Archangel
> >>I am arguing that not only does the NIV read differently from the KJV,
> >>but the KJV (1611) also reads differently from the KJV (1769). And if
> >>the question "which Bible?" applies to new versions, it applies
> >>equally to the different versions of the KJV.
> >
> >Kjasowen
> >The NIV has 6500 examples of dynamic equivalence and twists any doctrines of
> >Bibles. The 1611 and 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines of Bible, however
> >the 1769 KJV was revised to correct spellings and grammars.
>
> In the 1611 KJV, Psa. 69:32 read, "...and your heart shall liue that
> SEEKE GOODE." In the KJV you use today, Psa. 69:32 reads, "...and
> your heart shall live that SEEK GOD." Whether we are to "seek good"
> or "seek God" is a matter of some doctrinal significance, don't you
> think?
>
You have yet to post your argument on why the word goode means good. I have
posted 7 reasons for the difference in these words & why the word in question
means God. Are you going to address this or just keep rehashing the same ol
story?
> Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
<snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>Archangel
>> >> >>One of the principles of textual criticism
>> >> >>is, "manuscripts are to be WEIGHED, not COUNTED."
>> >> >
>> >> >Kjasowen
>> >> >That's what WH's interests are. The fact is that they favored "WEIGHED" rather
>> >> >than the WITNESSES.
>> >>
>> >> Think this through. What carries more "weight" as a witness -- 100
>> >> MSS made a thousand years after the original, or a single MSS made a
>> >> mere hundred years after the original?
>> >
>> >You left a part out: "that disagrees in over 3000 places with other mss that are
>> >just 100 years old"
>>
>> Of the 5,000-plus complete and partial Greek MSS extant today, no two
>> are in complete agreement with each other. *ALL* Greek MSS disagree
>> with one another, and that includes the MSS behind the TR / KJV.
>
>To what extent? Are there 5000+ disagreement in the TR?
I am not talking about the TR itself; I am talking about disagreements
in the various MSS of the text-type behind the TR. Erasmus,
Stephanus, Beza, and others who produced various editions of printed
Greek NT's had to decide which of these variants was the original
reading. Having said that, it is interesting to note that even they
didn't agree on the original reading in many places, which is why
their TR's often differ.
>
>> You
>> seem not to be aware of this. When *ALL* the MSS disagree, it is the
>> AGREEMENTS between them that are used to determine the best reading.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> What carries more "weight" as
>> >> a witness -- 100 MS that are 20th generation copies of an original, or
>> >> a single MS that is a mere two generations from the original?
>> >
>> >that dissagres with other "older" & "better" mss.
>> >
>> >> And
>> >> consider the MSS evidence itself. Does it not strike you as
>> >> significant that EVERY early MS we have (i.e., before the 5th C.) is
>> >> of the Alexandrian or Western text type, while NONE are of the
>> >> Byzantine text type (the one behind the TR / KJV?)
>> >>
>> >
>> >What are these mss made of?
>>
>> Most were made of papyrus; some were made of parchment.
>>
>> >How durable is it?
>>
>> The evidence suggests that both papyrus and parchment were at least as
>> durable as paper.
>>
>> >How long does a USED copy last?
>>
>> Some used copies lasted 1800 years.
>
>Which copies are you refering to that lasted & were used for 1800 years?
The early papyri (like p45, p46, p47, p66, p72 and p75) were used and
lasted 1800 years, but were not used constantly for all that time. No
MSS of ANY text type was used constantly.
>
>> >Why
>> >don't these early MSS agree? Why are thier so many disagreements? If they are so
>> >accurate you would think that they would be in more of an agreement. Right?
>>
>> But they DO agree for around 90% of the text! For MSS made in the
>> pre-Constantinian era when Christianity was a persecuted minority
>> religion and copies had to be made privately, at personal expense,
>> under uncontrolled conditions without the use of professional scribes
>> or scriptoria, it's amazing there wasn't MORE disagreement!
>
>10% is a BIG number! Thats one out of 10 words compleatly wrong! Thats one out of 10
>verses compleatly wrong! 10% is NOT a small number.
The vast majority of this 10% are insignificant variants (e.g.,
transpositions in word order or the presence / absence of a moveable
"nu" at the end of a word.) Of the important variants, none has any
significant effect on any major Christian doctrine. God has
providentially preserved His Word for us in the Greek MSS.
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 16 Oct 1999 04:31:19 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>Archangel
>> >> As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
>> >>B,
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >Right, you got it. Why B manuscript?
>>
>> Because they thought it was *THE* best early witness to the original
>> text of the NT.
>
>and why did they belive this?
Because in W&H's time it was the oldest MSS of the Bible in existence.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>This is why no text
>> >>critic today uses the W&H text.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >I refer the WH text to the Greek text. The apostates still use it, not ERV
>> >because ERV is no longer for today. I saw WH Greek text in some Christian
>> >bookstores.
>>
>> The W&H Greek text is used today for scholarly and historical reasons,
>> but NOT as the basis of any Bible translations.
>
>what use would it have if it were known to be wrong?
For one thing, so its text can be compared with other Greek texts to
determine the similarities and differences.
>
>Is it not odd that the foundation of these new texts is the W/H text & it is
>now proven wrong?
>
You are mistaken. The foundation for these new texts is the total
Greek MSS evidence. Since W&H's day we have discovered many more
Greek MSS, some of which are older than B by two hundred years. This
is why the W&H text (which, by the way, AGREES with the TR / KJV text
90% of the time) has been superceded.
<snip>
Archangel
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On 16 Oct 1999 04:45:33 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>>
>> >>Archangel
>> >>"WHICH KJV?"
>> >>
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >The Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the Oxford KJV.
>>
>> How do you know this?
>>
>> >
>> >>Archangel
>> >>I am arguing that not only does the NIV read differently from the KJV,
>> >>but the KJV (1611) also reads differently from the KJV (1769). And if
>> >>the question "which Bible?" applies to new versions, it applies
>> >>equally to the different versions of the KJV.
>> >
>> >Kjasowen
>> >The NIV has 6500 examples of dynamic equivalence and twists any doctrines of
>> >Bibles. The 1611 and 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines of Bible, however
>> >the 1769 KJV was revised to correct spellings and grammars.
>>
>> In the 1611 KJV, Psa. 69:32 read, "...and your heart shall liue that
>> SEEKE GOODE." In the KJV you use today, Psa. 69:32 reads, "...and
>> your heart shall live that SEEK GOD." Whether we are to "seek good"
>> or "seek God" is a matter of some doctrinal significance, don't you
>> think?
>>
>
>You have yet to post your argument on why the word goode means good. I have
>posted 7 reasons for the difference in these words & why the word in question
>means God. Are you going to address this or just keep rehashing the same ol
>story?
I have posted my reasons. Anyway, since we both agree that we can
determine which KJV is correct by going to the Greek, it is not
necessary to continue this discussion.
Archangel
Kjasowen
>but I did notice from your post that the Beza always agrees with the KJV.
Kjasowen
The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV (A.V.) of 1611
follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition.
Kjasowen
>The UBS 4 / NA 27 are critical texts that determine readings based on
>the entirety of MS evidence.
>
Kjasowen
This UBS 4 / NA 27 which adds 500 TR words, follows the WH line.
Archangel
>>David Rea
>>but I did notice from your post that the Beza always agrees with the KJV.
Not always. In Jas. 2:13, the KJV reads "without thy works," while
Beza's 1565 edition reads "by thy works."
>
>Kjasowen
>The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV (A.V.) of 1611
>follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition.
Not always. The present edition of the TR is actually made up of
readings from the various editions of the TR which were selected by
the KJV translators. In other words, the present edition of the TR
didn't exist anywhere before the KJV translators made their textual
choices.
Archangel
Kjasowen
>Not always. The present edition of the TR is actually made up of
>readings from the various editions of the TR which were selected by
>the KJV translators. In other words, the present edition of the TR
>didn't exist anywhere before the KJV translators made their textual
>choices.
> while
>Beza's 1565 edition
Kjasowen
Do you have the Beza's 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament? If so, please
read the preface including 1565, which you refer to the edition of Beza. If
not, you need to order your purchase.
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:46 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Oct 1999 04:31:19 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Archangel
> >> >> As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
> >> >>B,
> >> >
> >> >Kjasowen
> >> >Right, you got it. Why B manuscript?
> >>
> >> Because they thought it was *THE* best early witness to the original
> >> text of the NT.
> >
> >and why did they belive this?
>
> Because in W&H's time it was the oldest MSS of the Bible in existence.
& what happens to the NASB & NIV when newer better mss are "discovered" Do they
become obsoleet?
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>Archangel
> >> >>This is why no text
> >> >>critic today uses the W&H text.
> >> >
> >> >Kjasowen
> >> >I refer the WH text to the Greek text. The apostates still use it, not ERV
> >> >because ERV is no longer for today. I saw WH Greek text in some Christian
> >> >bookstores.
> >>
> >> The W&H Greek text is used today for scholarly and historical reasons,
> >> but NOT as the basis of any Bible translations.
> >
> >what use would it have if it were known to be wrong?
>
> For one thing, so its text can be compared with other Greek texts to
> determine the similarities and differences.
>
> >
> >Is it not odd that the foundation of these new texts is the W/H text & it is
> >now proven wrong?
> >
>
> You are mistaken. The foundation for these new texts is the total
> Greek MSS evidence. Since W&H's day we have discovered
You have said that these mss were in use for the 1800 years, what do you mean by
"discovered"?
David Rea
Archangel wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:29:51 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Archangel wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Oct 1999 04:45:33 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Archangel
> >> >>"WHICH KJV?"
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Kjasowen
> >> >The Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the Oxford KJV.
> >>
> >> How do you know this?
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>Archangel
> >> >>I am arguing that not only does the NIV read differently from the KJV,
> >> >>but the KJV (1611) also reads differently from the KJV (1769). And if
> >> >>the question "which Bible?" applies to new versions, it applies
> >> >>equally to the different versions of the KJV.
> >> >
> >> >Kjasowen
> >> >The NIV has 6500 examples of dynamic equivalence and twists any doctrines of
> >> >Bibles. The 1611 and 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines of Bible, however
> >> >the 1769 KJV was revised to correct spellings and grammars.
> >>
> >> In the 1611 KJV, Psa. 69:32 read, "...and your heart shall liue that
> >> SEEKE GOODE." In the KJV you use today, Psa. 69:32 reads, "...and
> >> your heart shall live that SEEK GOD." Whether we are to "seek good"
> >> or "seek God" is a matter of some doctrinal significance, don't you
> >> think?
> >>
> >
> >You have yet to post your argument on why the word goode means good. I have
> >posted 7 reasons for the difference in these words & why the word in question
> >means God. Are you going to address this or just keep rehashing the same ol
> >story?
>
> I have posted my reasons. Anyway, since we both agree that we can
> determine which KJV is correct by going to the Greek
For the record, the greek is only one of the seven or so ways I could use to
determine this. It could be done w/o the greek in my opinion.
David Rea
Kjasowen wrote:
> >David Rea
> >but I did notice from your post that the Beza always agrees with the KJV.
>
> Kjasowen
> The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV (A.V.) of 1611
> follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition.
So, Archangel was not being compleatly candid.
NobleExile
Do not pass go.
Do not collect $100
=========================
- Nobile+Exile -
'Carpe diem, quam minimum
credula poetero'
Archangel
wrote:
>
>
>Archangel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 17:19:46 -0700, David Rea <dr...@northcascades.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Archangel wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 16 Oct 1999 04:31:19 GMT, kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>Archangel
>> >> >> As I said in an earlier post, W&H relied far too heavily on
>> >> >>B,
>> >> >
>> >> >Kjasowen
>> >> >Right, you got it. Why B manuscript?
>> >>
>> >> Because they thought it was *THE* best early witness to the original
>> >> text of the NT.
>> >
>> >and why did they belive this?
>>
>> Because in W&H's time it was the oldest MSS of the Bible in existence.
>
>& what happens to the NASB & NIV when newer better mss are "discovered" Do they
>become obsoleet?
It depends on what any hypothetical new MSS might tell us about the
original text of the NT. It is possible that our English translations
may need some revisions.
>> >> >
>> >> >>Archangel
>> >> >>This is why no text
>> >> >>critic today uses the W&H text.
>> >> >
>> >> >Kjasowen
>> >> >I refer the WH text to the Greek text. The apostates still use it, not ERV
>> >> >because ERV is no longer for today. I saw WH Greek text in some Christian
>> >> >bookstores.
>> >>
>> >> The W&H Greek text is used today for scholarly and historical reasons,
>> >> but NOT as the basis of any Bible translations.
>> >
>> >what use would it have if it were known to be wrong?
>>
>> For one thing, so its text can be compared with other Greek texts to
>> determine the similarities and differences.
>>
>> >
>> >Is it not odd that the foundation of these new texts is the W/H text & it is
>> >now proven wrong?
>> >
>>
>> You are mistaken. The foundation for these new texts is the total
>> Greek MSS evidence. Since W&H's day we have discovered
>
>You have said that these mss were in use for the 1800 years, what do you mean by
>"discovered"?
I said these MSS were used, but not by everyone in the church, and not
constantly over the whole 1800 year period. In some cases,
"discovered" means "came to public knowledge," as in the case of MSS
used by monks in an obscure monastery unknown to the rest of the
world. In some cases "discovered" means "unearthed," as in the case
of papyri used by ancient Egyptians Christians and found buried in the
desert.
>
>> many more
>> Greek MSS, some of which are older than B by two hundred years. This
>> is why the W&H text (which, by the way, AGREES with the TR / KJV text
>> 90% of the time) has been superceded.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Archangel
>
>
>
Archangel