Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-20-2009, 11:19 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112 View Post
We're on the same wavelength my friend. I don't know Smith, I didn't even know Curtis Hutson had died till a few months ago. There is an entire subculture out there, pardon the phrase, an alternative lifestyle, called "fundamentalism". I don't keep up with it. I know Dr. Ruckman points his rifle at someone and I guess expects everyone else to point their rifle at them too. I know he was right about Gary Hudson; I had a dialog with Hudson till he found out my "position" was that the KJV was given by inspiration and that God worked through it, he called me a "Ruckmanite". which was kind of him since I called him an Original Manuscript Fraud. On the other side of the coin when Jack Hyles got busted for adultery Ruckman took Hyle's "side" because Robert Sumner and several other "fundamentalists" made the silly mistake of accusing Hyles of holding to "the Ruckman position on the KJV". I appreciate and share Doc Pete's zeal for the KJV, Charley Manson held the position that the KJV was the word of God, but that in no way excused him being a mass murderer. Sumner was casting spears, Ruckman was using Hyles to cast spears at anti-KJV folks. With Dr. Ruckman's crowd, Hyle's "problems" didn't seem to be the issue, only that mean nasty anti-KJV folks were attacking him, a "KJVO", so they must have been wrong about Hyle's "other" problems too. Whether Hyles believed the KJV was the word of God or The Godfather was the word of God is not the issue: he was making whoopie with his secretary for 20+ years, ruined a family, and threw even more wood on the fire that was barely put out with the Bakker/Swaggart scandals.

I guess my point is that I'm gonna check out for myself whether or not an accusation against anybody is true or not. I respect and hold Dr. Ruckman in high esteem for his stand and teaching, but he can do and say things sometimes makes a stone statue shake it's head.

Grace and peace brother Manny

Tony
After saying "forgetaboutit" and a reference to the Godfather, you must be an Italian.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #22  
Old 05-21-2009, 12:05 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
However, just because the Greek and Hebrew is not our language today does not mean that there is absolutely no benefit in the original languages in regards to the definition of words.
As far as the Bible is concerned, there is no need for the original languages to understand the Scripture today, since it is settled that it is a perfect TEXT and perfect TRANSLATION.

If someone comes across an English word, say, “propitiation”, “Ghost”, or “alway”, running to the Hebrew and Greek, or to lexicons as such are NOT a vital step in Scripture interpretation.

Quote:
Many people will argue, "Don't waste your time with the Greek and just look up the word in the 1828 Webster's dictionary."
I am not saying that. I do not even use Webster’s 1828.

Quote:
Yet how do you think Mr. Noah Webster came about his definitions of words. He dissected those words and resorted to their origins (many of which was Greek - check it out).
You are talking about an American Bible reviser from 1828.

Will Webster really be able to give us definitions and benefits by going to the Hebrew and Greek?

This is the superior method:

1. Read the context.
2. Compare that passage with other Scripture passages.

Now, a person could also go look at the Oxford English Dictionary, but that is not necessary. On a basic level, any reputable wordlist might be alright. But using the context/conference principle, you will be on the solid ground of Scripture. Also, I would think that it is quite good for people to hear what Bible teachers (and commentators) say when they are sound.

Quote:
The point is that there IS a benefit that can be had in referring to the Greek and Hebrew when studying the definition of a certain word.
There is a benefit to the etymologist, because his knowledge has increased, but there is no requirement for the normal Christian, because it is ultimately the Spirit of God who guides into truth, not dallying about with (supposed) meanings of Hebrew and Greek words.

Where is the sure, absolute definition of Hebrew and Greek anyway?

Now, how will Hebrew or Greek be helpful to know the meanings of these words?

PROPITIATION. GHOST. ALWAY.

1. These are Bible words in our perfect KJB.
2. These are English words, not Hebrew and Greek, and they do not have Hebrew and Greek meanings. Even dictionaries give their meaning in English!

"Propitiation" comes from Latin. "Ghost" and "alway" come from Old English (Anglo-Saxon).

A person with English only can find out the difference between “alway” and “always” without ever having to consult the original languages.

Quote:
And by doing so, the Bible student is not undermining the KJV by simply availing himself of the very resources that God Himself preserved.
If the Hebrew and Greek have been providentially preserved by God today, then this would require a usefulness for them, that is, that the perfect King James Bible is somehow incomplete (that is, we cannot fully interpret it), unless we have the Hebrew and Greek. That would be making the King James Bible today in some way dependant upon knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek, or on works which bring that out to us. This is the very scholar-onlyism which the whole KJBO position rejects. We do not still need the Hebrew and Greek to be able to comprehend fully God’s Word, because God has fully given it in English, and is well able to bring us into knowledge as we study it.

This leads us to see that God has not especially providentially preserved the originals today, but the KJB, which has all the signs of the divine favour upon it and throughout it!

Quote:
Does he HAVE to do this? No. But is he wrong, or apostate, or a Bible corrector if he does this? Not at all. And there's nothing written ANYWHERE or revealed by God that says he is.
The problem is that a person who must consider the Greek and Hebrew somehow must automatically assume that what he has in English is not enough. That is, God was not powerful enough to get all His truth into English alone, but somehow there must be a link back to the original languages. This speedily becomes obvious in the reasons people give for justifying their journeys back to the originals. They think that they will gain more knowledge by it.

Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Lu 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
  #23  
Old 05-21-2009, 08:03 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Bibleprotector,

You are arguing past me or with someone else (beating in the air). Because nobody on this thread said anything about DEPENDING upon the Greek and Hebrew as a necessity to understand the KJB.

What has been said is that seeking out a definition of a word in the Hebrew and the Greek is not wrong. It is a viable option.

But you seem to not be able to differentiate between those who consult the Greek and Hebrew from those who use them to undermine the KJB. There IS a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
If the Hebrew and Greek have been providentially preserved by God today, then this would require a usefulness for them, that is, that the perfect King James Bible is somehow incomplete (that is, we cannot fully interpret it), unless we have the Hebrew and Greek. That would be making the King James Bible today in some way dependant upon knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek, or on works which bring that out to us. This is the very scholar-onlyism which the whole KJBO position rejects. We do not still need the Hebrew and Greek to be able to comprehend fully God’s Word, because God has fully given it in English, and is well able to bring us into knowledge as we study it.

This leads us to see that God has not especially providentially preserved the originals today, but the KJB, which has all the signs of the divine favour upon it and throughout it!
This is where you are absolutely wrong. God DID providentially preserve His Words. The initial giving of His Words were not done in English. They were given in Hebrew and Greek. God said that He would preserve those pure words from generation to generation. And again, those divine Words have not expired as God's Words. God preserved those initial Greek and Hebrew words through:

1. The tireless copying of those Greek and Hebrew words from generation to generation in multitudes of manuscripts.

2. The accurate translating of those Greek and Hebrew words into other languages. These translations (most especially the KJV) provides for us a resource by which we can IDENTIFY the pure words of God and distinguish them from the corrupt.

When God gave us the KJB, he gave us an inerrant translation of those pure words (that were initially given in Hebrew and Greek) into English. So how do we distinguish what Greek words are the words that God gave? You identify them with the KJB since it IS an "independent variety of the Received Texts". This is exactly what Scrivener did when he produced his edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894. According to the Trinitarian Bible Society:

Quote:
“F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorized Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.” The Received Text: A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus by G.W. & D.E. Anderson
As far as the Hebrew is concerned scribes have painstakingly copied every word from generation to generation. Ask any orthodox Rabbi in a synogogue today about the Hebrew scriptures that they have today and they will tell you that what they have is an exact copy of the words of Moses and the Prophets. After all, this is what God commanded them to do. And after reading how extreme the Masoretes' copying techniques were (destroying an entire manuscript over just one error and taking a shower every time the name of God came up) I believe them because it matches God's promise that His words (which concerning the OT were given in Hebrew) would be preserved in every generation. These Hebrew words can be found in the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic text.

God's inspired words in Hebrew and Greek are here today because God promised they would be. To say that we don't have the original Greek and Hebrew words of God today is to deny what God said about preserving those words. And English-speakers have these same words infallibly preserved in English in the KJB.

Bibleprotector, it is interesting to me how those of your persuasion will insist that Scrivener's Greek text and the Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text are in conflict with the KJV, yet you never provide any examples. I've been told by several "TR-guys" who actually take the time to read the Received Texts (one of which has been teaching Greek and Hebrew since 1945) that there are no conflicts or differences between those texts and the KJB. Whenever those of the Alexandrian Critical Text persuasion try to point out differences, the so-called "discrepancies" are only manifested to be a misunderstanding on the critic's part of what is actually rendered in the texts.

I contend that we do have the very words that God gave His prophets and apostles based upon the dozens of verses that deal with Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures. God does not lie. We have those words in the editions of the Received Texts already mentioned. And we have those words in the infallible KJB. In fact, as Shelton Smith points out, God providentially preserved His words in the Received Texts so that we CAN have the KJB. After all, the KJV translators weren't producing words out of thin air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
The problem is that a person who must consider the Greek and Hebrew somehow must automatically assume that what he has in English is not enough.
No. The person who considers the Greek and Hebrew in their studies are acknowledging their weakness in comprehending "the unsearchable riches of Christ" in the Word of God. So out of a sincere desire to learn they are availing themselves of whatever they can so as to help them. Bibleprotector, your problem is that you take certain truths and take them to such a ridiculous extreme. What we have in the English IS enough. But that doesn't mean we are going to grasp it all. Why else do you think God raised up "Pastors and teachers"? Since the "English is enough" perhaps God wasted His time raising up "Pastors and teachers" who can help us to understand the scriptures better. Perhaps we should throw away all of our commentaries since "the English is enough". No, although the English IS enough, God has allowed some things that we can avail ourselves as Bible students. Now I agree that the best way to define a word is through context, cross reference, and the law of first mention. But I also allow that the Words of God that He initially gave and providentially preserved HIMSELF is also a viable option for the sincere Bible student.
  #24  
Old 05-21-2009, 08:14 AM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

So that I am not misunderstood, I will put it plainly that in my opinion Dr. Smith has a high regard for the KJB. I cannot tell from his article whether or not he uses it exclusive of any other English Bible, therefore, I cannot label him as a KJBO, a label he has not given himself.

His use of the original languages to aid in the definition of a word troubles me slightly in that it is often indicative of one who may be KJBP (preferred) instead of KJBO. I love Dr. D.A. Waite dearly. I have taken his seminar on the Defense of the KJB. I have a number of his books. I have listened many of his messages. In talking personally with him, I would still have to view him as KJBP instead of strictly KJBO. He is ultimately a defender of the TR, which as Matthew has pointed out is a bit ethereal.

These men are solid men. I am glad for their contributions. There is just a point where we must come to a difference of conviction. When I know that limitation and boundary, then I can still fellowship on the common ground that we have.
  #25  
Old 05-21-2009, 08:34 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Bro. Tim,

In another article in which Shelton Smith upholds the KJV, he says:

Quote:
Why Do We Not Use Other English Bibles?

1. As a practical matter, since I do believe God has preserved His Word for us, when two different Bibles say two different things, it poses a major problem. If they are different, at least one of them is incorrect. I simply do not want my Bible to be a source of confusion.

2. In the second place, there is a logistics problem. Almost all English Bibles which have come into being in the past 125 years are based on the Westcott-Hort texts. The Westcott-Hort texts are frankly spurious texts in that they have been tampered with.

http://www.swordofthelord.com/whatsthatbook.htm
On another note, Bro. Tim, I like your approach in dealing with differences amongst the brethren.
  #26  
Old 05-21-2009, 09:06 AM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

I am not familiar with Dr. Smith other than the first article, so he may have covered his position differently elsewhere. I am stating my opinion based entirely on the posted article. In that one he did not unambiguously state that he used the KJB exclusively. The above quote also leaves a bit of wiggle room. (Okay, so I am being picky! ) I would ask him straight up, "What Bible is your Final Authority?" Then I can tell you if he is KJBO.

To answer the post question: Yes, Dr. Shelton Smith is a Bible-Believer. Contrary to what some here believe, I do not think that only strict KJBOs are Bible-believers.
  #27  
Old 05-21-2009, 10:19 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Because nobody on this thread said anything about DEPENDING upon the Greek and Hebrew as a necessity to understand the KJB.
I am showing that arguing for Hebrew and Greek, especially defending why it is necessary to talk about “theopneustos” rather than plain English “inspiration” is problematic. Is there any reason why references to “theopneustos” are required for proper teaching on inspiration? Yet, I find TROs have on various occasions used this word.

Quote:
What has been said is that seeking out a definition of a word in the Hebrew and the Greek is not wrong. It is a viable option.
Viable? Meaning that the English in the KJB alone is not sufficient? If it is viable then the KJB is not absolute, sole authority.

Quote:
But you seem to not be able to differentiate between those who consult the Greek and Hebrew from those who use them to undermine the KJB. There IS a difference.
The problem isn’t consulting the Hebrew and Greek, the problem is that TROs are not standing for the KJB as sole final authority. If you can say it is the word of God, teach it and study it without NECESSARY reference to the original languages, then I would concede that you are not undermining the KJB. What you would have to do is agree that the full and utter truth is there in the KJB, and that you might be able to have access to all of it, without ever having to go to the original languages.

Quote:
They were given in Hebrew and Greek. God said that He would preserve those pure words from generation to generation.
You have misquoted Scripture, it actually says from this generation. Anyway, the pure words are present in our KJB, and that is in line with all the promises of the Scripture that it should be made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, etc. This clearly is not limiting preservation or purity to the original languages.

Certainly, I agree that the inspiration took place in the original languages, and that the emphasis of preservation was there until the time of the Reformation, but we all know that the emphasis in the Reformation was upon translating, and that now the emphasis must be on upholding one pure standard for all the world.

Quote:
And again, those divine Words have not expired as God's Words.
Are God’s words in English any less divine? I think Tyndale et al would disagree with you.

Quote:
God preserved those initial Greek and Hebrew words through:

1. The tireless copying of those Greek and Hebrew words from generation to generation in multitudes of manuscripts.
Very few manuscripts were copied after the Reformation. Not one of the manuscripts or the TR or critical editions are perfect and exact. In short, there is no perfect Bible matching the Autographs which is extant in the original languages today. (This is besides all the controversy over the meanings of words and grammar in the original languages!)

Quote:
2. The accurate translating of those Greek and Hebrew words into other languages. These translations (most especially the KJV) provides for us a resource by which we can IDENTIFY the pure words of God and distinguish them from the corrupt.
The identifying of God’s pure words is not by using the KJB to yet find them in the original languages. That is completely backward. God isn’t bothered with the originals today. If we are trying to discover or defend the original languages, we are in the shaky ground which leads to the untenable assertions of TROism. Namely, that God’s Word actually isn’t fully and utterly in the King James Bible alone, but somehow reference must be made to the original languages, and attempts to reconstruct and defend the original words behind the KJB must be maintained. Why? THE KJB WILL NOT FALL DOWN IF WE NEGLECT THE HEBREW AND GREEK! Why? God is upholding His Word, and it is fully and utterly gathered and passed into the English.

Quote:
When God gave us the KJB, he gave us an inerrant translation of those pure words (that were initially given in Hebrew and Greek) into English.
This is true, but no single source exists in the original languages that is 100% perfect on its own. Moreover, if the words as were gathered and discerned by the KJB men from the original languages and their utilising of many witnesses were “pure”, would not this mean that 100% purity is also there in English? In short, the KJB MUST BE 100% PURE, and this means that whatever was pure in the originals is neither here nor there, for the English is pure.

Quote:
So how do we distinguish what Greek words are the words that God gave?
We don’t. The 1611 men did that, and what we do is receive the Word in our tongue: English.

Quote:
You identify them with the KJB since it IS an "independent variety of the Received Texts". This is exactly what Scrivener did when he produced his edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894.
The KJB is, but Scrivener’s work is not final nor perfect. You will notice that 1 John 5:7 stands as pure Scripture in the KJB. You will see that Scrivener’s Greek undermines 1 John 5:7. Also, there are other problems with Scrivener’s artificial construction. What is worse is that if you go to it, you are already assuming that the KJB is not fit to stand as the pure Word of God alone upon its own authority. You are deferring to some other form which does not even agree exactly with the KJB.

Notice that even TBS states, “closely underlies”. I can tell you that it is not pure and perfect, because it is not agreeing with the KJB. The reality is that the only kind of acceptable agreement ultimately is that people look at the English itself. There is no true benefit that we would gain as far as doctrine or interpretation by having Scrivener’s Greek. You see, English is the standard.

Quote:
As far as the Hebrew is concerned scribes have painstakingly copied every word from generation to generation.
The universal priesthood of believers, as is now manifest through the Protestant line, is far superior to this rabbinical line which had its place prior to the Reformation.

Quote:
Ask any orthodox Rabbi in a synogogue today about the Hebrew scriptures that they have today and they will tell you that what they have is an exact copy of the words of Moses and the Prophets.
Ask a KJBO today, and he will tell you that the KJB is 100% perfect. Unlike the variations in the Hebrew scrolls, of which none is 100% perfect today! Moreover, being a Christian, I am inclined to believe people of my religion (e.g. Baptists) rather than people of another religion!

Quote:
I believe them because it matches God's promise that His words (which concerning the OT were given in Hebrew) would be preserved in every generation.
No passage of Scripture reads “in every generation”. I say this because Melchisedec and Abraham did not have the Scripture. In fact, it is we who have an exact text of the Scripture in one form. I am certain that at the Reformation there was no flawless Hebrew copies. The only way we actually know what God’s words are is by trusting and believing the KJB. If the KJB, there is no need to go to the Hebrew today and figure out what Hebrew words the KJB is representing. That is only confusion.

Quote:
God's inspired words in Hebrew and Greek are here today because God promised they would be.
I say that they are not here today in one perfect form accessible to the whole world. And yet the KJB is. There is not one verse of Scripture which specifically promises the preservation to the original languages.

Notice that the following verses specifically require the exact Scriptures in non-original languages:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Re 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

To this can be added Matthew 28:19, 20 and Romans 16:26 etc.

Quote:
And English-speakers have these same words infallibly preserved in English in the KJB.
This means that you do not hold to the perfection of the KJB as an entity, but merely as a derived form, and actually place emphasis upon continuing original language “masters” rather than translation “puppets”.

What you are saying is that the full authority of Scripture cannot be invested into a translation. You are saying that a translation cannot become the new and final form. And what you really are saying is that the KJB can never become the only Bible which we would take alone to believe. That is, you are not King James Bible only, because you deny that the KJB is God’s providentially appointed form of His Word which has all authority and all power. In other words, preservation in English is merely a subset of God’s preservation in the originals.

AND YET, THERE IS A PERFECT TEXT AND TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH, AND NO PERFECT TEXT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY OF THE ORIGINALS! How strange it must be that God has provided His preserved Word in a TRANSLATION!

Quote:
there are no conflicts or differences between those texts and the KJB
I know there are no conflicts, because the KJB gives in English exactly what was inspired, and that the TR and the MT were the conduits by which the exact truth came to be in English.

Quote:
After all, the KJV translators weren't producing words out of thin air.
Exactly, and why would we reject what they have produced by making reference to the general mass of TR Greek renderings and MT Hebrew renderings, when they produced a final form? In other words, why reject that God’s providential preservation passed over into the English by keeping a superstitious deference to “the originals”, when we have God’s Word entire and intact with us in English?

Quote:
The person who considers the Greek and Hebrew in their studies are acknowledging their weakness in comprehending "the unsearchable riches of Christ" in the Word of God.
It is plain that such a person will ever be seeking, for that the Scripture plainly said to come and drink, not to be ever seeking. The weakness in comprehending is exactly because there is no firmness in grasping the final, settled and certain words of the KJB. If you link back to the originals, there will be some confusion.

Quote:
So out of a sincere desire to learn they are availing themselves of whatever they can so as to help them.
The Spirit of God is powerful enough to help the sincere seeker, and all the more as a person trusts that God have given His Word, plainly, truly and rightly presently with us in the KJB. The Spirit did not say anything about emphasising the originals.

Quote:
What we have in the English IS enough.
That is true. But the KJB is not only sufficient. It is perfect. If was merely sufficient, God would lead us to the correctness of the originals. But God is leading people to the correctness of the KJB. The use of the originals is something which has fallen away.

Quote:
Why else do you think God raised up "Pastors and teachers"?
To bring five words of understanding from the KJB rather than ten thousand words from the originals!

Quote:
Since the "English is enough" perhaps God wasted His time raising up "Pastors and teachers" who can help us to understand the scriptures better.
I do not know which pastors and teachers you mean, but the right teaching is to rely upon the Scripture as given. The KJB is it. Better understanding comes from studying it, not the original languages.

Quote:
But I also allow that the Words of God that He initially gave and providentially preserved HIMSELF is also a viable option for the sincere Bible student.
The KJB has the words which God initially gave and preserved Himself, despite that the KJB was not produced by inspiration 1604-1611, and despite the fact that the KJB is in English.

* 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.

* Please explain why 100% of the sense could not be fully in English to the point where the English alone preserves 100% of what was communicated in the originals.

* Please state why the English is not sufficient to stand alone without any necessary reference to the original languages today.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 05-21-2009 at 10:26 AM.
  #28  
Old 05-21-2009, 01:39 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
You have misquoted Scripture , it actually says from this generation.
Nope, wrong again. The following verses tell us God's words are preserved from generation to generation.

“As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” Isa. 59:21

“He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Ps. 105:8

Also Ps. 78:1-8, Ps. 119:152, Isa. 40:8, and 1 Pet. 1:23-25.

Quote:
Are God’s words in English any less divine?
I never said they were. Of course, their is a lot of things I never said but you have the incurable habit of putting words in people's mouth.

Quote:
The KJB is, but Scrivener’s work is not final nor perfect. You will notice that 1 John 5:7 stands as pure Scripture in the KJB. You will see that Scrivener’s Greek undermines 1 John 5:7.
No it doesn't. Not in the edition of his text that I have. Try again. I challenge you to show me one edition of Scrivener's text where 1 Jn. 5:7 is not in it's entirety.

Quote:
Also, there are other problems with Scrivener’s artificial construction.
Prove it. I double dog dare you. All you have to do is show me any omissions or additions that contradicts the KJB. Just one would do.

Quote:
I can tell you that it is not pure and perfect, because it is not agreeing with the KJB.
No you can't because you cannot provide one fraction of an example of an error in Scrivener's text. Once you can do that, than you can say it is "not pure and perfect". Until then, all you can do is do what you're doing now - blowing smoke.


Quote:
Unlike the variations in the Hebrew scrolls, of which none is 100% perfect today!
Prove it. Provide just one textual error in the Daniel Bomberg edition of the Masoretic text. I challenge you.

Quote:
Notice that the following verses specifically require the exact Scriptures in non-original languages:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Ro 10:19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

Re 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

To this can be added Matthew 28:19, 20 and Romans 16:26 etc.
I know what you are trying to imply. And we've already gone over this before. But no, these verses have nothing to do with the KJB. You are twisting scripture to fit your British Israelism.

Quote:
This means that you do not hold to the perfection of the KJB as an entity, but merely as a derived form, and actually place emphasis upon continuing original language “masters” rather than translation “puppets”.
No it doesn't. I hold to the perfection of the KJB because it is perfect. There are no errors in it. Plain and simple.

Quote:
What you are saying is that the full authority of Scripture cannot be invested into a translation.
Nope. This is the 1028th time you've tried to convince me that I've said something that I never said.

Quote:
I know there are no conflicts, because the KJB gives in English exactly what was inspired, and that the TR and the MT were the conduits by which the exact truth came to be in English.
Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde? Are you listening to you contradict yourself here?

Quote:
The Spirit did not say anything about emphasising the originals.
He didn't say that it was wrong to consult the original language texts either.

Quote:
* 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.
For Hebrew - The Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, Second Rabbinical Edition, printed by Daniel Bomberg. For Greek - The 1894 NT of Scrivener (Textus Receptus).

These texts are the very Hebrew and Greek words that underlie the KJV word for word.

Quote:
Please explain why 100% of the sense could not be fully in English to the point where the English alone preserves 100% of what was communicated in the originals.
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.

Quote:
* Please state why the English is not sufficient to stand alone without any necessary reference to the original languages today.
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.
  #29  
Old 05-21-2009, 01:39 PM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Bibleprotector, here's the fundamental difference between you and me:

1. My position is that the KJB is the FINAL authority.

2. Your position is that the KJB is the ONLY authority.

Blessed is the man that knoweth the difference.
  #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!
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com