Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Hi Brandplucked,
Whoa, back up a minute. Previously in our discussion, I specifically asked you if you believed: "God's "words" were always pure, but prior to 1611 they were scattered into various manuscripts, i.e. there was no single "hold in your hand" complete inerrant perfect scripture prior to 1611." You responded "You basically have it right." I also noted where, in Lacy Evan's article (which you linked to from your article), Lacy says that prior to the KJV "there was not one copy inspired to absolute perfection on the planet. The only source of truth was the 'witness of the multitude of copies'" and how you called that article "excellent". For two solid weeks our discussion has been based on this, but now it sounds like you are saying something else. Please clarify this before we continue.
Brian
|
Brian. May I suggest you go back and read the whole article I wrote on this long ago. Part that you apparently missed is this: "Those who promote today's multiple, conflicting versions of God's words think they finally have the question that will stump the Bible believer and finally rob him of his faith in God's inerrant word. They ask us, "Well, where was the pure word of God BEFORE 1611?"
It will greatly enlighten your mind if you ask them the same question. They don't know where it was before 1611 either, or more importantly, where it is now. God's words from the Old Testament were most likely preserved in the Hebrew texts. A good educated guess for the New Testament words would be that God preserved them in the Old Latin Bibles, and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation. Theodore Beza, whose Greek text was used by the KJB translators, traces the Waldensian believers from around 120 A.D. to the Reformation. They were killed off by the thousands and their Bibles were burned by the Catholic persecutors. The Waldensians believed in the priesthood of every believer and the doctrines of grace. Then God's perfect words for both the Old Testament and the New Testament passed over to what would become the end times universal language - English - , and was simply titled "The Holy Bible", later to be known as the King James Version. That is where they remain today in all their purity.
THEN I mention Lacy Evan's article and recommend it as showing the resurrection of God's words. Do I agree with everything he says or believes? No. But basically he has a good idea about the resurrection of God's words in the King James Bible. That is all I was getting at in his article.
And then I go into the idea of the purification process in the English language. I have always argued for the preservation of the wordS of God, not just the nebulous and never defined "message".
I suggest you re-read the article and see more clearly how I understand how God's words came to be in the King James Bible.
Here is the link again:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html
Will K