View Single Post
  #30  
Old 05-22-2009, 12:31 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
I challenge you to show me one edition of Scrivener's text where 1 Jn. 5:7 is not in it's entirety.
I never said it was absent. If you look up 1 John 5:7 in Scrivener’s text from 1894, you will see that the typography on the words appears different there. You should be able to see that the presentation there makes a distinction. It detracts from the purity and certainty of those words.

The KJB does match the TR, but the KJB does not match any specific extant Greek edition exactly. Even the TBS knew that the KJB is not identical with Scrivener’s TR of 1894.

Quote:
You are twisting scripture to fit your British Israelism.
Huh? That is a completely false accusation. I am not twisting Scripture. I completely reject Anglo-Israelism.

Quote:
QUESTION: Please produce the perfect exact text in one form in Hebrew and in Greek, or show how it is possible today to know every last word in Hebrew and Greek with nothing added or taken away.

ANSWER: For Hebrew - The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, Second Rabbinical Edition, printed by Daniel Bomberg. For Greek - The 1894 NT of Scrivener (Textus Receptus).
What you have to understand is that the editions you point to are critical apparatuses. As such, they do not exhibit a single text, but one which may be viewed once variants and sidenotes are taken into account (or rejected).

Bomberg’s Hebrew was not the sole basis of the KJB. Scrivener’s TR was made long after the KJB was complete.

There are textual variations and various (albeit minor) issues with these single texts. They are not perfect. They do not perfectly and exactly match the KJB. They are only particular representatives in the original languages which are good, but not pure and perfect.

Are you really saying that these two editions are infallible down to the jot and tittle?

How can you explain the perfection of these editions since the KJB might be following a marginal rendering or a differing word order?

This is besides the fact that no one can be exactly sure when, in every last place, what words the KJB men might actually have been following.

Moreover, there are yet controversies over the meanings of words in the original languages. It is true that the KJB resolves this, but we do not actually have an identical form in the original languages for final and complete comparison.

Quote:
I never said 100% of the sense could not be fully in English. It IS (in the KJV). I believe the KJB portrays in English exactly what God said to the original writers in Greek and Hebrew.
Then why do you need the Hebrew and Greek, since it 100% in the English?

Quote:
The KJB is more than sufficient to interpret and define itself. I never said it wasn't. I never said that it was mandatory or a necessity to go to the Greek and Hebrew in order to understand the KJB. You're barking up the wrong tree. You should take up this argument with someone who actually believes these things.

What I said is that I agree with Shelton Smith that it is not wrong if someone wanted to consult the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a word. Does he HAVE to? No. But is it an option. Yes. And when he does so, is he a Bible corrector or apostate? No.
The problem is that by looking up the lexicon to define a GREEK word, to form a doctrine, is going to be different to looking up the English as to the definition of an ENGLISH one. Surely, “God breathed” is not the exact meaning of “inspiration”. That Hellenised view will lead to the idea that God was speaking to the authors of the Scripture, and not using them to actually write with pen and ink. In other words, it allows for errors in the writing of the Autographs even though God “spoke”. Thus, going to the Greek to “help” in this manner is actually a hindrance in defining doctrine.

The problem is not that the Greek is wrong. The problem is that today’s view of the Greek is insufficient. The KJB translators got it right for us, many believing scholars since that time have vindicated their work, so why would we have to go to the Greek to get extra light on our native tongue?

Now, why does the definition for “theopneustos” differ to the KJB’s definition. The KJB says, “inspiration”. It does not say, “God breathed”. Therefore it is safe to stay with the KJB which we know is perfect, and in a language we understand, than to delve into matters no one today can be absolutely certain about!