Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
becauseofgrace

Bible Versions - Anyone else KJV only?

Recommended Posts

davidstarcher
11 minutes ago, Wull said:

Amen!! That's been Satan's work since the Garden of Eden. 

Muslims highlight the confusion caused by modern versions, and use it to claim that the Bible is corrupted, unlike their Koran.

2 Corinthians 2:17
[17]For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

It's been a constant battle....

The muslim claim of corruption actually comes out of their necessity of explaining why the New Testament as we have it doesn't agree with their Koran. They consider the KJV to be corrupt as they do every other translation. To actually defend against their claim requires examining the transmission of scripture throughout history to demonstrate that changing the scriptures themselves would have been impossible since it was spread so rapidly over a large geographical area and never under the control of a single individual or organization. Yes individual manuscripts have suffered corruption as all handwritten manuscripts do but the scripture as a whole is discernible by examining and comparing all of of the available manuscripts in a process of textual criticism. KJV only advocates however cannot argue this because it also destroys their position; that is why KJV onlyists do not debate Muslims at least none I've heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
27 minutes ago, Wull said:

 

By that reasoning, we might as well legalise theft, get rid of speed limits, etc..... people will commit crime anyway...........

 That misses the point entirely. You can't blame multiple translations for the reason people divide over the word of God, not memorize scripture in unison, or question the authenticity of scripture when that has always taken place. There is no translation no matter how perfect that cannot and will not be twisted by men who desire to do so.  People have and do continue to do that even with the KJV.

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
54 minutes ago, Wull said:

Two different Greek texts. One complete, one riddled with errors. Don't blur the differences.

The KJV came about from multiple printed Greek texts not just one and those printed Greek texts didn't always agree with each other. Each of those printed Greek texts were a result of textual criticism of handwritten greek manuscripts which didn't uniformly agree with each other. I think it is more God honoring and truth seeking to  use all the manuscript evidence available rather then to artificially freeze it at one point in time in history.

 

Quote

Will we ever have a Bible that we don't have to scrutinise, or "critically examine"?? Won't be any time soon, it seems, because the Critical Text isn't settled - they're still working on it....

It also sounds like you're denying that God has kept His Word pure through the ages.

 

Individual manuscripts have suffered corruption as all handwritten manuscripts do but the scripture as a whole is discernible by examining and comparing all of of the available manuscripts in a process of textual criticism. Yes God has preserved his word through all ages; just not in the way you would like it. The reality is that even your beloved KJV was ultimately (not directly) a result of textual criticism from corrupted greek manuscripts so if you object to that process you are objecting to the very process that brought about the KJV.  I understand your desire for certainty but it should not be at the expense of truth. The New Testament has a history of transmission and it has to actually be dealt with. 

Edited by davidstarcher
grammar correction

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

changing the scriptures themselves would have been impossible since it was spread so rapidly over a large geographical area and never under the control of a single individual or organization.

Which is why the majority of manuscript evidence is behind the TR. 

Heresies are rarely exclusively under the control of one individual or organisation, at least after a good few years have elapsed, so that argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

One of the two codices used to introduce the corruptions into the text, is under the control of the most evil organisation in the world - the Vatican.

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

To actually defend against their claim requires examining the transmission of scripture throughout history to demonstrate that changing the scriptures themselves would have been impossible

By giving credence to the whole modern narrative that the text was corrupted for many centuries until the restorationists started work in the late 1800's, folk like James White are just giving Muslims ammunition for their claims - something that they're delighted to take full advantage of .

 

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

KJV only advocates however cannot argue this because it also destroys their position;

How does it destroy their position, when the weight of manuscript evidence is behind the TR?

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

KJV onlyists do not debate Muslims at least none I've heard of.

Where is the Biblical warrant for a James White style debate with promoters of false religion??

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

I think it is more God honoring and truth seeking to  use all the manuscript evidence available rather then to artificially freeze it at one point in time in history

So why favour versions translated from a text based on a minority of manuscripts???

"Artificial"..... God has blessed the use of Reformation-era Bibles, on a large scale, worldwide. That should tell us something. It's interesting to note that revivals in the English-speaking world, all happened before the widespread use of modern versions.

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

Yes God has preserved his word through all ages; just not in the way you would like it.

But if He allowed verses to be "added", and "corrupt" readings to persist, in the only available Bibles available for hundreds of years, until the heretical Westcott and Hort, and their heretical modern equivalents, came along - what does that say about God's ability to preserve His Word? You're effectively saying that He didn't make a good job of it!

 

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

The reality is that even your beloved KJV was ultimately (not directly) a result of textual criticism from corrupted greek manuscripts so if you object to that process you are objecting to the very process that brought about the KJV. 

As you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge, the KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles were brought about by Godly and extremely learned men applying BELIEVING textual criticism to Greek texts that were not like the incomplete, error-ridden and mutually contradictory one underlying the Critical Text - and unlike the CT, there was no ecumenical involvement. Nobody involved in the production of Bibles such as the KJV, were candidates for the papacy

4 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

The New Testament has a history of transmission and it has to actually be dealt with.

Please do so, and repent of the false charges of misinformation, including those you have levelled (without, as yet, specifying) at Justin recently.

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
45 minutes ago, Wull said:

Which is why the majority of manuscript evidence is behind the TR. 

Majority text simply means having the reading found in most greek manuscripts. It doesn't take into account age of the manuscripts or any other factors. Naturally there are far more later manuscripts then earlier especially in places where there is peace. Giving equal weight to later manuscripts however doesn't make sense from a historical perspective. The TR, as a whole, is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts, perhaps a little over a dozen. Most of these manuscripts, being late medieval Byzantine texts, are a tertiary part of the larger Majority text tradition, but the TR is not representative of that tradition as a whole. Some of its readings have support in only a few late manuscripts. Indeed, in contains a number of readings that came in through other avenues besides Greek manuscripts and which are not found in any Greek manuscript at all. The TR is, thus, a distinct textual tradition that differs from both the Majority Text and the Modern Critical Text

 

45 minutes ago, Wull said:

Heresies are rarely exclusively under the control of one individual or organisation, at least after a good few years have elapsed, so that argument doesn't hold a lot of water.

It explains how the scripture couldn't be changed and why we can have confidence that it is present in the manuscript tradition. I was not addressing heresies or their origins and history. The Koran being subject to the control of a single individual and organization at one point in time can't defend against the claim that it no longer reads as it was originally written. All the different manuscripts of the Koran were gathered up and burned and a new official one was created so that they would all read the same. Because the New Testament didn't have that kind of control tampering without detection is impossible. 

 

45 minutes ago, Wull said:

One of the two codices used to introduce the corruptions into the text, is under the control of the most evil organisation in the world - the Vatican.

are you alleging that it is a forgery? What do you mean by corruption? Normally when you are talking about corruption in manuscripts you are mostly talking about grammar and spelling errors and other such differences which occur as a result of the hand copying of documents. 

 

45 minutes ago, Wull said:

By giving credence to the whole modern narrative that the text was corrupted for many centuries until the restorationists started work in the late 1800's, folk like James White are just giving Muslims ammunition for their claims - something that they're delighted to take full advantage of .

 

Individual handwritten manuscripts are corrupted; that is the nature of handwritten copies. That is a historical fact and was understood even by the translators of the KJV. It's not a modern narrative. Having corrupted manuscripts does not equal the word of God being corrupted if you hold that view then the word of God could not have been given to the people of God until the invention of the printing press or perhaps not even until the invention of the copy machine since it would suffer corruption as soon as people began copying it. God's word doesn't require a perfect translation to be God's word; the use and quotation of the Septuagint by Jesus and the apostles demonstrates that since the Septuagint was not a perfect translation.  The Latin Vulgate isn't perfect either but for hundreds of years it was the primary access that people in the west had to God's word. Even those who translated the KJV didn't believe that they were creating the perfect translation or that it was necessary to do so for God's word to be preserved. The KJV has actually gone through several revisions and the one most commonly used by KJV onlyists today isn't the 1611.  God has preserved his word throughout history and he didn't have to wait until the KJV to do so. Nevertheless we should want to create the best translation possible which is why it is important to look at all the evidence available and check past work in light of it. 

 

45 minutes ago, Wull said:

How does it destroy their position, when the weight of manuscript evidence is behind the TR?

 Weighting text is a matter of textual criticism and involves more than just counting how many manuscripts exist that support one particular reading. More weight is usually given to the earliest manuscripts and this does not support the TR. You have previously seemed to reject the idea behind weighting text and simply wanted to go with the majority.

45 minutes ago, Wull said:

Where is the Biblical warrant for a James White style debate with promoters of false religion??

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;" 1 Pet 3:15

 

 The Greek word translated “defense” there is apologia. It’s used eight times in the New Testament and literally means a formal defense or reasoned argument for one’s position. It is the language of the courtroom where one side makes the accusation and  the other gives the response. 

 

"Act wisely toward outsiders, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone" Col 4:5-6

 

"for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor 10:4-5

 

God commands apologetics and that alone, for the Christian, should be reason enough. All of these verses require that you allow the other side to speak and make their case; a one sided monologue isn't apologetics.

 

"The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Prov 18:17

 

Formal debate takes the discussion and gives rules and structure to it so that a fair examination of both sides can be shown. Done well it limits the discussion to a specific topic, sets time, requires responses to questions by the opposing side, and prohibits outside interference. That structure is more conducive for civil discourse and allows for a more fair examination of the claims being made. That type of formal debate requires oratory skills that not everyone has but it's usefulness has been demonstrated throughout history to be a very effective. 

 

James R. White has taken the message of the gospel to Mormons, Catholics, Atheists, Oneness Pentecostals,Jehovah's Witnesses, and now Muslims. By engaging their arguments against reformed theology including the reliability of scripture( a common theme of all these groups) he demonstrates the errors in their claims. As a result of his work numerous people have come out of the cults and false religions and embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
3 hours ago, Wull said:

So why favour versions translated from a text based on a minority of manuscripts???

"Artificial"..... God has blessed the use of Reformation-era Bibles, on a large scale, worldwide. That should tell us something. It's interesting to note that revivals in the English-speaking world, all happened before the widespread use of modern versions.

He has also blessed the Latin Vulgate in it's time and the NASB, ESV, and NIV in modern times. It's simply not a valid argument. You could simply say well God can use a crooked stick to draw a straight line.

 

3 hours ago, Wull said:

But if He allowed verses to be "added", and "corrupt" readings to persist, in the only available Bibles available for hundreds of years, until the heretical Westcott and Hort, and their heretical modern equivalents, came along - what does that say about God's ability to preserve His Word? You're effectively saying that He didn't make a good job of it!

and by that standard he didn't do a good job before the English language translations of the reformers and therefore you also have a problem with the preservation of God's word. You simply aren't making a distinction between Scripture, the manuscript evidence which as a whole preserved them, and the process of translating them into the English language.

 

3 hours ago, Wull said:

 

As you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge, the KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles were brought about by Godly and extremely learned men applying BELIEVING textual criticism to Greek texts that were not like the incomplete, error-ridden and mutually contradictory one underlying the Critical Text - and unlike the CT, there was no ecumenical involvement. Nobody involved in the production of Bibles such as the KJV, were candidates for the papacy

Please do so, and repent of the false charges of misinformation, including those you have levelled (without, as yet, specifying) at Justin recently.

When you say that I refuse to acknowledge it seems like you mean by that, that I simply don't accept your conclusions. That isn't however what acknowledge means. I have actually responded to these claims multiple times previously.

 

They didn't engage in any special textual criticism called  BELIEVING textual criticism and never purported to do so. They were fallible men making fallable decisions and they left us some writings telling us how those decisions were made and it did not involve having a prayer meeting to decide which reading ought to be used.  I have already previously addressed the limited scope of knowledge, ability, and resources of the men behind the printed greek texts that went into the KJV. Yes they were learned men for their time but they were also limited by their time in history and there is no basis for us to limit ourselves to their time. 

 

Many men are interested in recreating the original autographs of the New Testament from the Greek manuscripts in the most accurate way possible and have various reasons for doing so but it doesn't necessarily follow that they would willfully attempt to arrive at another reading beyond what the evidence suggests it should. Even if they are a securlist who just sees the New Testament as an uninspired interesting historical document it doesn't follow that he wouldn't want the most accurate reading possible. The work of textual criticism and  all good translations are performed by committees and the work is available for examination, critique, and correction by other experts in the field so even if someone did deliberately make such a change it would be noticed and acted upon; Thus the claims of a conspiracy are without merit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
5 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

When you say that I refuse to acknowledge it seems like you mean by that, that I simply don't accept your conclusions.

It's a matter of FACTS, not merely conclusions.

You cannot truthfully deny that:

1. The translators of the AV were men who were Protestant, and believed that they were handling God's Word, rather than just another book.

2. That those same men, many of whom had been learning languages from childhood, had a far deeper understanding of Greek and Hebrew than modern scholars (of any persuasion) have.

3. That the Greek texts they used were produced by those of similar views (with the exception of the pre-Reformation text produced by the semi-reformer Erasmus).

4. That the compilers of the NA critical text variously denied the inspiration and authorship of parts of Scripture, referring to parts as "myth" etc., and included a candidate for the papacy whose Jesuit job description involved the subversion of Protestantism.

5. That the NA text was produced with Vatican agreement, as part of an ecumenical movement.

6. That Roman Catholicism and true Christianity are antithetical to each other.

7. That the two codices used by Westcott and Hort in their production of a critical text, which has direct descendants in the RSV and ESV, were full of errors and omissions, and disagree with each other thousands of times.

 

Those are demonstrable facts, not conclusions or claims. Don't keep conflating.

 

5 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

They didn't engage in any special textual criticism called  BELIEVING textual criticism and never purported to do so.

All textual criticism should be believing. It's not something special.... But it's the opposite of UNbelieving textual criticism, which is carried out by those who don't believe that they are dealing with God's Word (but merely with an approximation or "best guess", or in some cases don't believe the Bible at all).

 

5 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

Yes they were learned men for their time but they were also limited by their time in history

Strange that "Oldest is best!" is the policy regarding manuscripts, yet "Modern is best!" when it comes to scholarship......

 

5 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

The work of textual criticism and  all good translations are performed by committees and the work is available for examination, critique, and correction by other experts in the field so even if someone did deliberately make such a change it would be noticed and acted upon; Thus the claims of a conspiracy are without merit.

That sounds reassuring, but as history shows, it's wishful thinking. Westcott and Hort got off with it in their day, enough for the modern views to gain a foothold, despite many seeing through their work, and by now the church at large has swallowed similar ideas unquestioningly.

Evolutionary scientists also publish error - all it takes is a body of supportive fellow "experts".....

 

Edited by Wull
Capitalisation

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
9 minutes ago, Wull said:

It's a matter of FACTS, not merely conclusions.

You cannot truthfully deny that:

1. The translators of the AV were men who were Protestant, and believed that they were handling God's Word, rather than just another book.

2. That those same men, many of whom had been learning languages from childhood, had a far deeper understanding of Greek and Hebrew than modern scholars (of any persuasion) have.

3. That the Greek texts they used were produced by those of similar views (with the exception of the pre-Reformation text produced by the semi-reformer Erasmus).

4. That the compilers of the NA critical text variously denied the inspiration and authorship of parts of Scripture, referring to parts as "myth" etc., and included a candidate for the papacy whose Jesuit job description involved the subversion of Protestantism.

5. That the NA text was produced with Vatican agreement, as part of an ecumenical movement.

6. That Roman Catholicism and true Christianity are antithetical to each other.

7. That the two codices used by Westcott and Hort in their production of a critical text, which has direct descendants in the RSV and ESV, were full of errors and omissions, and disagree with each other thousands of times.

 

Those are demonstrable facts, not conclusions or claims. Don't keep conflating.

 

All textual criticism should be believing. It's not something special.... But it's the opposite of UNbelieving textual criticism, which is carried out by those who don't believe that they are dealing with God's Word (but merely with an approximation or "best guess", or in some cases don't believe the Bible at all).

 

Strange that "Oldest is best!" is the policy regarding manuscripts, yet "Modern is best!" when it comes to scholarship......

 

That sounds reassuring, but as history shows, it's wishful thinking. Westcott and Hort got off with it in their day, enough for the modern views to gain a foothold, despite many seeing through their work, and by now the church at large has swallowed similar ideas unquestioningly.

Evolutionary scientists also publish error - all it takes is a body of supportive fellow "experts".....

 

I have already addressed these claims and refuted them in my last message. You don't even try to engage with my response  and instead are again resorting to inferences of unproven conspiracy theories.  As far "Oldest is best!" is the policy regarding manuscripts, yet "Modern is best!" when it comes to scholarship....that is a category error. There is no contradiction in that it's simply talking about different things,  Historically getting as close to the original sources is important to scholarship; every historian believes that. However when it comes to knowledge of biblical Greek and Hebrew it was in it's infancy when the TR was produced and scholars today have a much greater understanding of the language as they do regarding textual criticism. 

 

The two codices used by Westcott and Hort in their production of a critical text are very old manuscripts and therefore very useful. Yes they aren't identical and such is the nature of handwritten manuscripts. There was no photocopy machine. Those manuscripts do not stand alone and many more manuscripts have since been found including Egyptian papyri which confirms many of their readings .

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
6 hours ago, davidstarcher said:
7 hours ago, Wull said:

It's a matter of FACTS, not merely conclusions.

You cannot truthfully deny that:

1. The translators of the AV were men who were Protestant, and believed that they were handling God's Word, rather than just another book.

2. That those same men, many of whom had been learning languages from childhood, had a far deeper understanding of Greek and Hebrew than modern scholars (of any persuasion) have.

3. That the Greek texts they used were produced by those of similar views (with the exception of the pre-Reformation text produced by the semi-reformer Erasmus).

4. That the compilers of the NA critical text variously denied the inspiration and authorship of parts of Scripture, referring to parts as "myth" etc., and included a candidate for the papacy whose Jesuit job description involved the subversion of Protestantism.

5. That the NA text was produced with Vatican agreement, as part of an ecumenical movement.

6. That Roman Catholicism and true Christianity are antithetical to each other.

7. That the two codices used by Westcott and Hort in their production of a critical text, which has direct descendants in the RSV and ESV, were full of errors and omissions, and disagree with each other thousands of times.

 

Those are demonstrable facts, not conclusions or claims. Don't keep conflating.

 

All textual criticism should be believing. It's not something special.... But it's the opposite of UNbelieving textual criticism, which is carried out by those who don't believe that they are dealing with God's Word (but merely with an approximation or "best guess", or in some cases don't believe the Bible at all).

 

Strange that "Oldest is best!" is the policy regarding manuscripts, yet "Modern is best!" when it comes to scholarship......

 

That sounds reassuring, but as history shows, it's wishful thinking. Westcott and Hort got off with it in their day, enough for the modern views to gain a foothold, despite many seeing through their work, and by now the church at large has swallowed similar ideas unquestioningly.

Evolutionary scientists also publish error - all it takes is a body of supportive fellow "experts".....

 

Read more  

I have already addressed these claims and refuted them in my last message.

It is impossible to refute facts. You're constantly dismissing facts as "claims". 

In that list of 7 points, I was careful not to draw conclusions, even obvious ones.

Your message did touch on a few of the 7 points, but not all.

I'll come back to points 1-3 shortly, but until then, are you going to acknowledge the FACTS (devoid of conclusions) in points 4-7? 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
6 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

You don't even try to engage with my response

I didn't have unlimited time to deal with everything.

13 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

. Giving equal weight to later manuscripts however doesn't make sense from a historical perspective.

It does, when considering the fact that faithful manuscripts would have been used until they were absolutely worn out (not, as in rich modern countries, when they got a little scruffy). Age is everything, according to the modern view - yet we know that there were those who sought to corrupt the Word of God from the earliest days of the church.

 

13 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

Indeed, in contains a number of readings that came in through other avenues besides Greek manuscripts and which are not found in any Greek manuscript at all. 

This, and several other claims of yours, are dealt with here:

And here:

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/9D62A49E-9FF0-410B-B3CB-23A3C5EAE1CF/The-Lord-Gave-the-Word.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
2 minutes ago, Wull said:

It is impossible to refute facts. You're constantly dismissing facts as "claims". 

In that list of 7 points, I was careful not to draw conclusions, even obvious ones.

Your message did touch on a few of the 7 points, but not all.

I'll come back to points 1-3 shortly, but until then, are you going to acknowledge the FACTS (devoid of conclusions) in points 4-7? 

I am not interested in discussing your inferred but unproven and unelaborated conspiracy theories. You should stick to fruitful subject like how given your understanding of the preservation of scripture did God preserve it and make it available to believers before the TR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
13 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

Because the New Testament didn't have that kind of control tampering without detection is impossible. 

The tampering has been detected, but those who don't care, are happy to treat tampered texts as perfectly valid.

13 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

are you alleging that it is a forgery? What do you mean by corruption? Normally when you are talking about corruption in manuscripts you are mostly talking about grammar and spelling errors and other such differences which occur as a result of the hand copying of documents

I believe that some people treat it as a forgery. Given the technical skills at their disposal, their history of deceit and their hatred of God's Word, it's quite plausible to believe that the Vatican forged it - but in the absence of clear evidence, I'm not going to make that claim. 

We should, however, be extremely wary of anything coming from the seat of the anti-Christ.

It and Siniaticus are very incomplete. Corruption doesn't stop at mere misspellings etc. It extends to missing verses, rewritten verses and much else.

14 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

since it would suffer corruption as soon as people began copying it.

You're conflating what would nowadays be termed "typos", with revisionist corruptions (less extreme than Marcionite corruptions, but extremely serious nonetheless).

14 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

the one most commonly used by KJV onlyists today isn't the 1611. 

That might be hard to prove, as the KJVO folk usually rave about the 1611, with varying degrees of accuracy in their ravings. 

As I've repeatedly made clear, I'm not advocating KJV-Onlyism, but the position of the church until Westcott and Hort's ideas took hold - a position that for convenience could be referred to as TR-Onlyism. 

I'm not sure that you've grasped that.

14 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

All of these verses require that you allow the other side to speak and make their case; a one sided monologue isn't apologetics.

I believe that what is spoken of in those verses, is giving a defense of the faith when challenged either privately or in something like a court trial, as the apostles did in Acts. 

That's not the same as a voluntary, public debate, where to at least some extent one has to acknowledge the other person's views as valid, even if they flatly contradict God's Word. 

Anyway, that's a topic for another thread.

13 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

and by that standard he didn't do a good job before the English language translations of the reformers and therefore you also have a problem with the preservation of God's word.

The Word of God was not widely available to the common man, and was kept from them by the "church", but the extant copies were not corrupted in the way that modern translations are.

His Word was preserved, though not widely available. 

Compare that with the views of modern textual critics, who think that the true text was lost until recent times, and that they're busy reconstructing it for us (with no certainty as to when - or if - that job will ever be completed.

7 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

The two codices used by Westcott and Hort in their production of a critical text are very old manuscripts and therefore very useful. Yes they aren't identical and such is the nature of handwritten manuscripts.

 

That's simply wishful thinking. They're heavily corrected, and contradict each other (literally) thousands of times.

https://www.tbsbibles.org/resource/collection/9D62A49E-9FF0-410B-B3CB-23A3C5EAE1CF/Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
40 minutes ago, davidstarcher said:

I am not interested in discussing your inferred but unproven and unelaborated conspiracy theories.

I challenged you to acknowledge FACTS. Not conclusions. Are they uncomfortable truths?? You're constantly twisting both history and the remarks of others, and unrepentantly bearing false witness with your unproven and unelaborated claims of misinformation etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
2 minutes ago, Wull said:

I challenged you to acknowledge FACTS. Not conclusions. Are they uncomfortable truths?? You're constantly twisting both history and the remarks of others, and unrepentantly bearing false witness with your unproven and unelaborated claims of misinformation etc. 

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying you weren't trying to infer a conspiracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
1 hour ago, Wull said:

 

It does, when considering the fact that faithful manuscripts would have been used until they were absolutely worn out (not, as in rich modern countries, when they got a little scruffy). Age is everything, according to the modern view - yet we know that there were those who sought to corrupt the Word of God from the earliest days of the church.

That is unsupported speculation. I could just as easily argue that the most valued manuscripts were the ones most protected and therefore the ones that lasted. After all I put the books I value most in a special place while the ones I value least I let the kids play with. 

 

If  heavy use means that a manuscript is considered a faithful manuscript then it seems contradictory to complain about the heavy correction of a manuscript which is a indication of heavy use. 

 

Corruption as you have used it "doesn't stop at mere misspellings etc. It extends to missing verses, rewritten verses and much else." so I am simply using the term the same way you are. If you prefer the technical term we can call it textual variants. Most textual variants are the result of copyist error misspelling a word, skip a phrase, or even a whole line, due to his eye catching a similar word, or a similar ending, somewhere else on the page as he looks back at the page he is copying. Other examples would be parallel influence due to scribes trying to harmonize scripture and expansion of piety. Deliberate attempts to change scripture to change doctrine is actually very rare and because of the widespread transmission of the text easily detected and is rejected. All handwritten manuscripts are subject to textual variants but that doesn't mean that scripture hasn't been preserved in them or that they can't be properly used to create a good printed greek text.. The TR itself used manuscripts that had textual variants but it also has readings that are not found in any known greek manuscript. 

 

You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. What will you do with the error of the copyists? 

 

It seems that you think that the true text was lost or at least hidden so that it couldn't be used until the TR when it was reconstructed for us which is essentially the same view you accuse modern day textual scholars of. The historic protestant view however did not see it that way. They saw the Latin Vulgate and being the word of God in the west even if it was not a perfect text and could only be read by learned men. They saw earlier translations into the language of the people be it English or German as also being the word of God even if they weren't the best possible translations. In like manner the TR and the KJV translators never saw themselves as creating a perfect document or one that should never be subject to examination and correction as the need arose. Freezing time and enshrining a single greek language  printed text isn't called for. Modern day translations (excluding those deliberately designed to promote a false doctrine )are not perfect but like the translations before  them they still can properly be called the word of God because God's word is still accurately and effectively transmitted to them through the imperfect translation.

Share this post


Link to post
brian146

I prefer to use the ESV and NASB as the main translations for my personal reading and study. I like that they use a more formal equivalence translation methodology; I think this makes it easier to see the parallels between different passages. The downside to formal equivalence is that, especially when it comes to idioms, it can be hard to understand certain phrases since I am in a different culture; this is where dynamic equivalence translations, like the NIV, can give you more insight into cultural disconnects. However, I would rather have the most literal translation with good study notes, or commentaries, so that I can learn the what idioms and phrases mean so that I can best approximate the mindset of the original audience of each text.

 

One thing that I find lacking in even my preferred modern translations is that some aspects of modern English are less precise than previously. For instance, "King James" English is more precise in some cases when it comes to pronouns, such as when using "ye" as the second-person plural in the subjective case. I think it would great if we could reintroduce "ye" back into modern parlance (or at least "you all" would provide greater specificity).
I also like some vocabulary that older versions use, although maybe I envision them differently. Especially in the New Testament, the ESV will, in many places, use the word "brothers" in the main text but include a note saying that it could refer to "brothers and sisters". I think that the term "brethren" would be sufficient in places where it could refer to both or either, allowing "brothers" and "sisters" to be used in cases where it is exclusive.

 

The most compelling argument I have heard regarding advocacy of the KJV is that there are copious commentaries and other resources in the English language that use the KJV as their referent text. Therefore, some would say, using the KJV opens you up to a greater wealth of information and gives you a greater connection to our brethren in the past. I do not think this a substantive enough argument for the English-speaking Christian world to use the KJV, but it functions better as an argument for people to familiarize themselves with the KJV so that they will be better equipped to use resources built there upon.

 

Whichever translations you use, know what their weaknesses are and how to compensate for them (e.g., consult other translations, learn the biblical languages, use commentaries and study notes). As others have mentioned, it is also a good idea to have one common translation in your church and family. My pastors cite different translations from the pulpit, and we have both the ESV and CSB as our pew bibles. While I do not think my pastors are doing so, citing from different translations regularly can be a sign of proof-texting some pet theological view.

 

I agree with some who advocate for using less-literal translations when it comes to evangelism or speaking prophetically to the culture. A gospel tract that contains verses from the NLT may be a better evangelism tool to reach people who did not grow up in the church than one containing verses from the KJV, or even the ESV (depending, in part, on which verses). This may be comparable to giving some a tract written in the person's native tongue over one written in his second language. As God allows, different translations may be good for different uses.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
On 2/15/2020 at 8:13 AM, davidstarcher said:

Please don't insult my intelligence by saying you weren't trying to infer a conspiracy. 

I was directly challenging you to acknowledge FACTS, not conclusions based on the facts presented. If you had a good explanation of either the inaccuracy of those points, or of how they didn't matter, why refuse to acknowledge them??

"Imply", not "Infer".....

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

That is unsupported speculation. I could just as easily argue that the most valued manuscripts were the ones most protected and therefore the ones that lasted. After all I put the books I value most in a special place while the ones I value least I let the kids play with. 

That's because books, and in particular the Scriptures,  are plentiful enough nowadays for everyone to have their own copies. 

In the days of the early church, copies of the Scriptures were scarce (and would have been far too expensive for ordinary working people to afford), so each faithful copy would have been in great demand and used until it wore out.

On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

 

If  heavy use means that a manuscript is considered a faithful manuscript then it seems contradictory to complain about the heavy correction of a manuscript which is a indication of heavy use. 

A faithful manuscript would not have required copious correction. Heavy correction does not automatically mean heavy use.

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

due to his eye catching a similar word, or a similar ending, somewhere else on the page as he looks back at the page he is copying. Other examples would be parallel influence due to scribes trying to harmonize scripture and expansion of piety.

That's slander against scribes.

The scribes of those days worked to exacting standards, even having to throw away a scroll and start again if they made a mistake. 

They were not careless.

These points and many others have been dealt with in the article I've shared by Malcolm Watts - "The Lord Gave the Word".

On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

It seems that you think that the true text was lost or at least hidden so that it couldn't be used until the TR when it was reconstructed for us which is essentially the same view you accuse modern day textual scholars of.

Nonsense. Even the Latin Vulgate wasn't anywhere near as corrupted as the likes of the NA/UBS critical text. 

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

(excluding those deliberately designed to promote a false doctrine )

Which are they? You're admitting that they exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
1 hour ago, Wull said:

I was directly challenging you to acknowledge FACTS, not conclusions based on the facts presented. If you had a good explanation of either the inaccuracy of those points, or of how they didn't matter, why refuse to acknowledge them??

"Imply", not "Infer".....

If you are not using them to make a conclusion then they serve no other purpose then to poison the well and engage in Ad hominem fallacy. I already pointed this out and don't need to repeat myself. Continuing to to that is not suitable for civil discourse or logical argumentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
1 hour ago, Wull said:

That's because books, and in particular the Scriptures,  are plentiful enough nowadays for everyone to have their own copies. 

My point is that it's a claim that by its nature is impossible to prove one way or the other which is why as an argument its worthless.

1 hour ago, Wull said:

In the days of the early church, copies of the Scriptures were scarce (and would have been far too expensive for ordinary working people to afford), so each faithful copy would have been in great demand and used until it wore out.

A faithful manuscript would not have required copious correction. Heavy correction does not automatically mean heavy use.

An very old manuscript with many notes in many different handwritings clearly put at different times is a clear demonstration of continuous use. 

1 hour ago, Wull said:

That's slander against scribes.

The scribes of those days worked to exacting standards, even having to throw away a scroll and start again if they made a mistake. 

 

The existence of textual variation proves nothing more then scribes were human; Students today make the same kinds of errors when they are forced to write by hand. That they exist and are part of the manuscript tradition is a fact that is beyond dispute. That the manuscripts that made up the TR included textual variation is also a fact beyond dispute.

 

 

You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. What will you do with the error of the copyists? 

 

1 hour ago, Wull said:

These points and many others have been dealt with in the article I've shared by Malcolm Watts - "The Lord Gave the Word".

Nonsense. Even the Latin Vulgate wasn't anywhere near as corrupted as the likes of the NA/UBS critical text. 

The latin Vulgate is a translation. NA/UBS critical texts are printed Greek New testaments compiled from the manuscript tradition. That is not the same thing. In order for your statement to make sence in either case would first require you to define what you mean by corruption and what you are comparing them to.

 

Malcolm Watts in "The Lord Gave the Word" actually disagrees with you on many points including the presence of textual variation being "slander against the scribes" or being a sufficient reason to throw out a manuscript. However as a whole it is a one sided document full of unproven and unprovable claims about how things were done in the past and silly arguments like "Scripture gives no indication that there was ever an apostolic presence in those parts, but church history reveals that many notorious heretics lived and taught there including such Gnostics as Basilides, Isidore, and Valentinus. Anything proceeding from this place must be regarded with some suspicion"  Churches were present there very early so naturally they would have had copies of the New Testament scripture early on whether a single apostle stepped foot there or not, Athanasius of Alexandria the great defender of the faith against heretics lived there, and there were plenty of heretics that came  from places where the Byzantine text-type was prevalent not that the presence or absence of heretics in an area is a compelling argument in the first place. The mere  inclusion of this statement serves no other purpose then to poison the well to produce doubt and support the obviously predetermined bias of the author and is sufficient enough reason to dismiss the entire document as the worthless propaganda piece it is.

 

One of the things I value about James R. White and his writings and podcasts is that he actually takes the time to present both sides of the argument and actually cites those who disagree with him in context and at length. In his podcasts he often will play the entire audio of those he is responding to on his podcast so that nobody can accuse him of taking it out of context and so that people can judge for themselves after hearing both sides. That is the exact opposite approach of a propaganda piece.

 

1 hour ago, Wull said:

 

Which are they? You're admitting that they exist. 

Of course I know they exist. It's common knowledge that cults like to make their own Bibles to support their doctrines. The Jehovah's Witnesses for example put out their own Bibles called the New World Translation and it differs in exactly the places that are needed to support their unique claims and in ways that can't be supported by the greek text. 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
3 hours ago, davidstarcher said:

If you are not using them to make a conclusion then they serve no other purpose then to poison the well and engage in Ad hominem fallacy. I already pointed this out and don't need to repeat myself. Continuing to to that is not suitable for civil discourse or logical argumentation

You have demonstrated no fallacy

- the fallacy lies in your claims of misinformation, ignorance etc. 

You flatly refuse to acknowledge evidenced truth, conflate all sorts of things in a manner that is misleading, and refuse to elaborate charges you level at others. 

Those are not marks of honesty. 

 

1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

One of the things I value about James R. White and his writings and podcasts is that he actually takes the time to present both sides of the argument and actually cites those who disagree with him in context and at length.

He also tells blatant lies, and resorts to mockery. 

 

1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

would first require you to define what you mean by corruption

I have. Again, you're not being honest.

 

1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

Of course I know they exist. It's common knowledge that cults like to make their own Bibles to support their doctrines. The Jehovah's Witnesses for example put out their own Bibles called the New World Translation and it differs in exactly the places that are needed to support their unique claims and in ways that can't be supported by the greek text. 

And the Catholics put out their editions of many of the modern versions - the logical outcome of their roots in a Greek text that, according to its foreword, was produced as an "interconfessional" text as part of the ecumenical movement.

Share this post


Link to post
davidstarcher
4 hours ago, Wull said:

You have demonstrated no fallacy

It's definitional. Logic 101.

Quote

- the fallacy lies in your claims of misinformation, ignorance etc. 

You flatly refuse to acknowledge evidenced truth, conflate all sorts of things in a manner that is misleading, and refuse to elaborate charges you level at others. 

Those are not marks of honesty. 

I believe have already proven all these things. The discerning reader can read what both of what we have written and decide that for themselves. I don't conflate I simply make proper distinctions of categories that you do not such as a distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. 

 

 

Quote

 

He also tells blatant lies, and resorts to mockery. 

I would encourage everyone to read his works and listen to his podcasts to decide for themselves. having said that the reason James R. White is able to debate so many people of various positions is because he is respectful of those he debates with and honest about their positions. He doesn't use straw man arguments or engage in ab hominum even when those who are debating him do so. So much so that the most common accusation is that he is a secret sympathiser or enabling those he debates.  He also happens to be an expert on this particular subject having taught in seminary Biblical Greek and because he was a critical consultant for the NASB.

 

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty four books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than one-hundred sixty five moderated, public debates around the world with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. In recent years James has debated in such locations as Sydney, Australia, as well as mosques in Toronto, London, and South Africa. He is a Pastor/Elder of Apologia Church in Arizona. He has been married to Kelli for more than thirty-seven years, and has two children, and four grandchildren.

 

 

 

 

Quote

I have. Again, you're not being honest.

You can't use a claim of corruption which you have defined as a textual variant applicable to handwritten manuscripts and then apply it to a printed greek text or to a translation. That is to ignore category distinctions. Difference between handwritten greek manuscripts, differences in producing a printed edition of the New Testament from the manuscript tradition, and difference caused during translation from one language to another are all caused by different things. It is not meaningful to lump it all together and call it corruption.

 

Quote

 

And the Catholics put out their editions of many of the modern versions - the logical outcome of their roots in a Greek text that, according to its foreword, was produced as an "interconfessional" text as part of the ecumenical movement.

They even put out Catholic Editions of the KJV. You can find them for sale on Amazon.

 

They can put out their own editions all they want. They really don't even care if their readers read the KJV or a newer translation. From the standpoint of catholics it doesn't matter because they don't believe in sola scriptura. They believe that the Bible must be understood through the lens of tradition and both the Bible and Tradition is defined and interpreted by the Church(Roman Catholic Church) and embodied in the pope in Rome. James R. White who had many debates with them calls it Sola Ecclesia 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Edited by davidstarcher

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

I don't conflate I simply make proper distinctions

You repeatedly and unrepentantly conflate the concepts of DEMONSTRABLE FACT, and CLAIM. 

 

1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

such as a distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. 

We're quite well aware of the differences. The devil's attacks on the Word of God extend throughout.

 

On 2/15/2020 at 11:03 AM, davidstarcher said:

Corruption as you have used it "doesn't stop at mere misspellings etc. It extends to missing verses, rewritten verses and much else." so I am simply using the term the same way you are. If you prefer the technical term we can call it textual variants.

 

1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

You can't use a claim of corruption which you have defined as a textual variant applicable to handwritten manuscripts and then apply it to a printed greek text or to a translation

Corruption in the manuscripts leads to corruption in the collated text, which leads to corruption in the translation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Wull
1 hour ago, davidstarcher said:

I would encourage everyone to read his works and listen to his podcasts to decide for themselves.

He has lied and used mockery when I have challenged him on Facebook. (I have screenshots). One pastor who uses the AV, reached out to White to try to have some dialogue, but with little worthwhile success.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News