compilation of bible verses which speak of biblical preservation

[RichardT]

King James Version (KJV)

Psalm 12:6

6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:7

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 33:11

11The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Psalm 100:5

5For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Psalm 111:7-8

7The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
8They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Psalm 117:2

2For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 119:89

89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:152

152Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalm 119:160

160Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 40:8

8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 59:21

21As 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.

Matthew 5:18

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Peter 1:25

25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Revelation 22:18

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[RichardT]

To me it is silly, if one were to believe completely what the bible states to say and that the critical greek text which underlies the modern versions is preserved by God even if the manuscripts used for it have not seen the light of day for over 1500 years and that they were found in an alexandran garbage and an vatican library instead of what the bible clearly says about biblical preservation.

[arunma]

Very interesting. I personally believe that these verses allude to the English Standard Version (published in 2001), which is the only true and perfect Bible. All other Bibles are false, and Satan whispered in the ears of their translators. Only the ESV is the word of God, because God promised to preserve his word.

What have you to say on my doctrine?

[RichardT]

Very interesting. I personally believe that these verses allude to the English Standard Version (published in 2001), which is the only true and perfect Bible. All other Bibles are false, and Satan whispered in the ears of their translators. Only the ESV is the word of God, because God promised to preserve his word.

What have you to say on my doctrine?

That is is absolutely ridiculous. The ESV was mostly translated off of the critical greek text, just like most modern versions.

[arunma]

That is is absolutely ridiculous. The ESV was mostly translated off of the critical greek text, just like most modern versions.

So what? This is how God chose to preserve his written word. And "who has known the mind of the Lord?" Yes, the Codex Vaticanus was found in a trash can. But God has chosen foolish things to represent his wisdom. Are you questioning God's ability to preserve his word?

[RichardT]

So what? This is how God chose to preserve his written word. And "who has known the mind of the Lord?" Yes, the Codex Vaticanus was found in a trash can. But God has chosen foolish things to represent his wisdom. Are you questioning God's ability to preserve his word?

Arunma's position : God's word was lost for over 1500 years and all bible believers and protestant reformers had errent bibles untill after the westcott and hort critical greek text.

richardT's position : God preserved his word through bible believing christians and protestant reformers for EVERY GENERATION just like his word said he did.

[arunma]

Arunma's position : God's word was lost for over 1500 years and all bible believers and protestant reformers had errent bibles untill after the westcott and hort critical greek text.

richardT's position : God preserved his word through bible believing christians and protestant reformers for EVERY GENERATION just like his word said he did.

On the contrary, I am claiming that God has always preserved his word by means of what you call the "critical text," which ultimately found its way into the ESV. Tell me this: according to your doctrine, where was God's word circa 700 AD?

[RichardT]

On the contrary, I am claiming that God has always preserved his word by means of what you call the "critical text," which ultimately found its way into the ESV. Tell me this: according to your doctrine, where was God's word circa 700 AD?

Bible of the waldensians, papyri MSS, the old latin and syriac of originals.

[arunma]

Bible of the waldensians

The Waldensian Church was founded in 1173. I asked where the "True Bible" was circa 700.

papyri MSS

That's not specific enough. Almost all manuscripts are written on papyri. That's like saying that the True Bible was written on paper.

the old latin and syriac of originals.

Old Latin? Unless you're referring to something other than the Vulgate of Saint Jerome, you're referring to the Bible that was in use by the Roman Catholic Church! As for the Syriac manuscripts, these are generally used by the Oriental Orthodox Church. And a lot of these don't match up with the Textus Receptus. Sorry Richard, but this theory doesn't seem to hold water. Unless of course I am not properly understanding your theory.

[RichardT]

The Waldensian Church was founded in 1173. I asked where the "True Bible" was circa 700.



That's not specific enough. Almost all manuscripts are written on papyri. That's like saying that the True Bible was written on paper.



Old Latin? Unless you're referring to something other than the Vulgate of Saint Jerome, you're referring to the Bible that was in use by the Roman Catholic Church! As for the Syriac manuscripts, these are generally used by the Oriental Orthodox Church. And a lot of these don't match up with the Textus Receptus. Sorry Richard, but this theory doesn't seem to hold water. Unless of course I am not properly understanding your theory.

No I did not mean the latin vulgate...

[arunma]

Bible of the waldensians, papyri MSS, the old latin and syriac of originals.

No I did not mean the latin vulgate...

Then what did you mean when you referred to the old Latin? What did you mean by the Syriac of originals? And what did you mean by "papyri MSS?" All of these are vague, general terms, and they do not refer to anything in specific. The only specific Bible you mentioned was the "Bible of the Waldensians," and this denomination did not exist until 400 years after the date that I specified.

I, however, can support my thesis that the ESV is the only true Bible by pointing out that the manuscripts used in translating it existed and were in use before the year 700. The Codex Vaticanus, for example, is from the year 350 AD.

[arunma]

Richard, obviously I don't believe that the ESV is the "only true Bible." What I hope to do here is demonstrate the absurdity of the belief that the King James Version is the only reliable translation of the Scriptures.

That said, I am still awaiting your explanation as to why the Scriptures couldn't have been preserved in the ESV as opposed to the KJV.

[RichardT]

Richard, obviously I don't believe that the ESV is the "only true Bible." What I hope to do here is demonstrate the absurdity of the belief that the King James Version is the only reliable translation of the Scriptures.

That said, I am still awaiting your explanation as to why the Scriptures couldn't have been preserved in the ESV as opposed to the KJV.

I want help :(

[Jim1927]

God doeth all things well.........God is perfect............God never makes mistakes...........If the KJV or any other version is preserved by God, I want to know why there are so many errors in so many versions?

I believe,,,,a personal belief....that God's word is preserved in thought, and this thought can be had from any of the versions brought to us down through the ages by men of God who worked dilligently to present the word of God.

Cheers, and enjoy whatever version you use,

Jim

[arunma]

I want help :(

You want help as in requesting someone else to defend KJV-onlyism? Or you want help to understand sound doctrine?

If the latter, then please hear me out Richard. I am no pastor or theologian, and I don't have all the answers. But I do know two things for certain: the Sun does not orbit the earth, and the King James Version is not the only true Bible. Yet your church teaches both of these doctrines! You have said yourself that you are concerned about your church finding out that you listen to secular music, or that you watch certain television shows such as South Park. While I don't personally watch South Park or listen to secular music (out of personal preference, not church tyrrany), even I know that this level of control over the lives of congregants seems like behavior befitting a cult rather than a spiritually healthy and Biblical church. Add to that the fact that they teach you blatent falsehoods.

I cannot stress enough how much I think that your fundamentalist church is neither Biblical nor spiritually healthy. If you want help in growing in sound doctrine, then out of genuine concern for you as a friend, I strongly recommend that you separate yourself from this fringe group and join a Biblical, theologically orthodox, non-fundamentalist church.

[RichardT]

You want help as in requesting someone else to defend KJV-onlyism? Or you want help to understand sound doctrine?

If the latter, then please hear me out Richard. I am no pastor or theologian, and I don't have all the answers. But I do know two things for certain: the Sun does not orbit the earth, and the King James Version is not the only true Bible. Yet your church teaches both of these doctrines! You have said yourself that you are concerned about your church finding out that you listen to secular music, or that you watch certain television shows such as South Park. While I don't personally watch South Park or listen to secular music, this level of control over the lives of congregants seems like behavior befitting a cult rather than a spiritually healthy and Biblical church. Add to that the fact that they teach you blatent falsehoods.

I cannot stress enough how much I think that your fundamentalist church is neither Biblical nor spiritually healthy. If you want help in growing in sound doctrine, then out of genuine concern for you as a friend, I strongly recommend that you separate yourself from this fringe group and join a Biblical, theologically orthodox, non-fundamentalist church.

I wanted help to defend KJO

[TwinCrier]

God doeth all things well.........God is perfect............God never makes mistakes...........If the KJV or any other version is preserved by God, I want to know why there are so many errors in so many versions?

I believe,,,,a personal belief....that God's word is preserved in thought, and this thought can be had from any of the versions brought to us down through the ages by men of God who worked dilligently to present the word of God.

Cheers, and enjoy whatever version you use,

Jim
If God doesn't make mistakes and the bible has errors, why trust any of it? I find that all the proclaimed errors and contradictions can be easily explained in context, but any explanation is labeled an excuse. Since the bible is in effect, a messenger from God, we should hold it to the same scrutiny as a prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
If there is an error in your bible, you should dispose of it immediately.

[RichardT]

If God doesn't make mistakes and the bible has errors, why trust any of it? I find that all the proclaimed errors and contradictions can be easily explained in context, but any explanation is labeled an excuse. Since the bible is in effect, a messenger from God, we should hold it to the same scrutiny as a prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
If there is an error in your bible, you should dispose of it immediately.

amen.

[Matthan]

Why is the KJV the most likely source of God's Truth that we have available today? Because of historical facts, and because of the purity and holiness of God. Now, how can I justify that statement?

First, do we all agree that God inspired every word of both the Old and New Testaments? I believe we can.

Which brings up logic and logical thinking on our parts. Can we logically presume that God also inspired the men who actually compiled the Bible into its current form? Oh, yes, we certainly can. God knew then, just as He knows now, how important an accurate writen form of His Truth would be for ALL future generations, so the Holy Spirit assuredly influenced and actually guided the compilation and organization of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Well, If God knew all that, did He also know how important the English translation would be for His people? Oh yes, He certainly did. Then can we assume that He guided the scribes authorized by King James to the source documents they utilized? Yes, that is a certainty. We can also assume that He guided those scribes with their translations, insuring that His Truth was passed on in the process. There can be no doubt about it for us Christians.

Remember that the KJV was the primary English Bible for several hundred years, which God also knew would be the case. So, at the very least, we can also presume that the specific content of ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS must at least be judged by what is found in the KJV.

With that said, and knowing the warnings given to us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture (see Matt. 24:4-5, 11, 24; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:14-15, 5:6-7; 2 Tim. 3:13-17; etc.) let's look at just one basic verse, Rev. 1:5 (I could cite dozens and more, but this one will suffice because it clearly states the most basic tenet of Christianity, that true believers are "washed" clean of their sins by the blood of Jesus.

KJV - And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

ASV - and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;

Living Bible - and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.

RSV - and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

Now, there are those who would argue that the "meaning" is the same in all of those verses, but is it? Not by a long shot, it isn't.

There are actually a lot more reasons why the KJV is such a wonderful bulwark against the devil's deceit. That slimy serpent just loves to change a few words here and there, and change the meaning of what God intended so that it becomes something God never intended, and it serves only to deceive many away from God.

So, are you washed in the blood of Jesus?

Matthan

[Matthan]

The sun does not orbit the earth??? Oh, woe is me....

Matthan

[christian73]

There is nothing in the Bible that says that the King James Bible is the only true bible. How can it? English hadn't even been created when the manuscripts were originally written.

[Matthan]

I do not believe anyone should show a condescending attitude towards any young, dedicated Christian who requests assistence from other Christians that he has learned to trust. In fact, just the opposite is true. We as Christians should always seek the councel of others that we have tested with the Scripture and that were found to be knowledgeable with God's Truth.

I would hope that anyone who does question the dedication of younger Christians take a long, hard look inside himself and see if maybe he is found wanting.

Matthan

[PaladinGirl]

I also believe that the KJV Is God's preserved Word.

[TwinCrier]

There is nothing in the Bible that says that the King James Bible is the only true bible. How can it? English hadn't even been created when the manuscripts were originally written.The KJV is the only true bible in modern English. No one has ever even hinted that the KJV is the only bible ever. Please argue the points being made and not create strawmen.

[Matthan]

The KJV is the only true bible in modern English. No one has ever even hinted that the KJV is the only bible ever. Please argue the points being made and not create strawmen.
Very well stated, TC

Matthan

[Jim1927]

Quote:
If there is an error in your bible, you should dispose of it immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------

Well, here goes the KJVERSION....It has many, many errors, whether they be printing errors or interpretative errors, wrong words, animals that never existed, Ahaziah being older than his father and the list goes on.

The majority of translators were Church of England, and there are definite areas where they used their church interpretation and the list goes on...........it is not perfect.

I agree that there are explanations, but that is not the point when it comes to "perfect" preserved word of God. The thought, yes, the actual words, no.

Bye bye KJVersion (not Bible) version.

Actually that is not true because I use the same KJ version I have used since 1945, when it was given to me. I also use Greek, Hebrew and 15 other translations.

Cheers,

Jim

[christian73]

The KJV is the only true bible in modern English. .

The Bible doesn't say that either. Besides the English in the KJV is not modern english.

[RichardT]

The Bible doesn't say that either. Besides the English in the KJV is not modern english.

Actually you're wrong, but that's ok, we're all wrong about some things sometimes...

I don't want to sound harsh/mean to brothers in Christ...

http://www.answers.com/modern+english&r=67

[greeker57married]

Why is the KJV the most likely source of God's Truth that we have available today? Because of historical facts, and because of the purity and holiness of God. Now, how can I justify that statement?

First, do we all agree that God inspired every word of both the Old and New Testaments? I believe we can.

Which brings up logic and logical thinking on our parts. Can we logically presume that God also inspired the men who actually compiled the Bible into its current form? Oh, yes, we certainly can. God knew then, just as He knows now, how important an accurate writen form of His Truth would be for ALL future generations, so the Holy Spirit assuredly influenced and actually guided the compilation and organization of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Well, If God knew all that, did He also know how important the English translation would be for His people? Oh yes, He certainly did. Then can we assume that He guided the scribes authorized by King James to the source documents they utilized? Yes, that is a certainty. We can also assume that He guided those scribes with their translations, insuring that His Truth was passed on in the process. There can be no doubt about it for us Christians.

Remember that the KJV was the primary English Bible for several hundred years, which God also knew would be the case. So, at the very least, we can also presume that the specific content of ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS must at least be judged by what is found in the KJV.

With that said, and knowing the warnings given to us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture (see Matt. 24:4-5, 11, 24; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:14-15, 5:6-7; 2 Tim. 3:13-17; etc.) let's look at just one basic verse, Rev. 1:5 (I could cite dozens and more, but this one will suffice because it clearly states the most basic tenet of Christianity, that true believers are "washed" clean of their sins by the blood of Jesus.

KJV - And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

ASV - and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;

Living Bible - and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.

RSV - and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

Now, there are those who would argue that the "meaning" is the same in all of those verses, but is it? Not by a long shot, it isn't.

There are actually a lot more reasons why the KJV is such a wonderful bulwark against the devil's deceit. That slimy serpent just loves to change a few words here and there, and change the meaning of what God intended so that it becomes something God never intended, and it serves only to deceive many away from God.

So, are you washed in the blood of Jesus?

Matthan

The ASV translation is correct, we were loosed from the power and penalty of sin. The ASV is not denying that we are washed in the blood of Jesus. You cannot accept the earlier manuscripts in this verse nor in others because to do so shows that the KJV is not perfect, even though it is completely trustworthy. No translation is perfect. The copies of the manuscripts we have today have variations in them. The Textus receptus has variations from the majority text. The KJV was revised several times. The only perfect manuscripts were the orginal autographs. Butthe pure originals are the basis for the high degree of accuracy in the copies we have.

God Bless
Greeker

[christian73]

Actually you're wrong, but that's ok, we're all wrong about some things sometimes...

I don't want to sound harsh/mean to brothers in Christ...

http://www.answers.com/modern+english&r=67
People don't talk that way any more. Besides that link says that the KJV is considerd Early Modern English, which is not today's English, which is not modern English.

[RichardT]

People don't talk that way any more. Besides that link says that the KJV is considerd Early Modern English, which is not today's English, which is not modern English.

It's Early Modern English

[arunma]

The sun does not orbit the earth??? Oh, woe is me....

But where does it end? Are they next going to teach that the earth is flat? Maybe soon this church will make it even simpler and teach that the world is a large rectangle supported on the back of a tortoise. The worst part is that this church proports blatently false "scientific" theories; they have constructed websites with diagrams that feign complexity, all in order to give their beliefs the false semblance of accuracy. In effect, these people lie to their congregants.

You said yourself that Satan likes to change small portions of God's word in order to change what he intended. While I flatly reject KJV-onlyism in any form, I certainly agree with this general understanding of the devil. What makes a scientific lie any better than a scriptural lie? I am fairly certain that your King James Bible refers to the devil as a liar and the father of lies. And this fundamentalist church's revised teaching on celestial mechanics is, quite literally, a lie of astronomical proportions. The belief that the Sun orbits the earth is both naive and foolish, and it ought to remain buried in the dark ages. People who call themselves Christians, who claim to respect the truth, ought not to purport lies as scientific truth.

[DeaconDean]

You said yourself that Satan likes to change small portions of God's word in order to change what he intended. While I flatly reject KJV-onlyism in any form, I certainly agree with this general understanding of the devil. What makes a scientific lie any better than a scriptural lie? I am fairly certain that your King James Bible refers to the devil as a liar and the father of lies. And this fundamentalist church's revised teaching on celestial mechanics is, quite literally, a lie of astronomical proportions. The belief that the Sun orbits the earth is both naive and foolish, and it ought to remain buried in the dark ages. People who call themselves Christians, who claim to respect the truth, ought not to purport lies as scientific truth.
Amen!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BBAS 64]

King James Version (KJV)

Psalm 12:6

6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:7

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 33:11

11The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Psalm 100:5

5For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Psalm 111:7-8

7The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.
8They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

Psalm 117:2

2For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD.

Psalm 119:89

89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psalm 119:152

152Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psalm 119:160

160Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isaiah 40:8

8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Isaiah 59:21

21As 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.

Matthew 5:18

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23

23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1 Peter 1:25

25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Revelation 22:18

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Good Day, Richard

Seems to me that your view is lacking from scripture, there is non one I know that disagrees with preservation.

The translators of the ESV, NASB, and the HCSB all agree with preservation, So I do not get your point.

Show me Scripture where it says that the english speaking population would have to wait some 1600 years to have the preseved word?

And that this process would be undertaken by a secular King who was the "head" of the church of England?

Also that this process was dependant in large part to a man called Erasmus from the Roman Catholic church as he devoloped his many Greek translations.

Cite Scripture please.....


Peace to u,

Bill

[eldermike]

The "Word of the Lord" is not a book of words.

[christian73]

It's Early Modern English
But it's not today's English, which is modern English.

[Matthan]

The ASV translation is correct, we were loosed from the power and penalty of sin. The ASV is not denying that we are washed in the blood of Jesus. You cannot accept the earlier manuscripts in this verse nor in others because to do so shows that the KJV is not perfect, even though it is completely trustworthy. No translation is perfect. The copies of the manuscripts we have today have variations in them. The Textus receptus has variations from the majority text. The KJV was revised several times. The only perfect manuscripts were the orginal autographs. Butthe pure originals are the basis for the high degree of accuracy in the copies we have.

God Bless
Greeker
The ASV, if I am not mistaken, is a direct translation of the Vulgate. And that says it all with respect to the untrustworthyness of the ASV, doesn't it! In my humble opinion no translation of the vulgate is worth a pound of salt. But hey, different strokes, right?

Matthan

[Matthan]

But where does it end? Are they next going to teach that the earth is flat? Maybe soon this church will make it even simpler and teach that the world is a large rectangle supported on the back of a tortoise. The worst part is that this church proports blatently false "scientific" theories; they have constructed websites with diagrams that feign complexity, all in order to give their beliefs the false semblance of accuracy. In effect, these people lie to their congregants.

You said yourself that Satan likes to change small portions of God's word in order to change what he intended. While I flatly reject KJV-onlyism in any form, I certainly agree with this general understanding of the devil. What makes a scientific lie any better than a scriptural lie? I am fairly certain that your King James Bible refers to the devil as a liar and the father of lies. And this fundamentalist church's revised teaching on celestial mechanics is, quite literally, a lie of astronomical proportions. The belief that the Sun orbits the earth is both naive and foolish, and it ought to remain buried in the dark ages. People who call themselves Christians, who claim to respect the truth, ought not to purport lies as scientific truth.
When I made my 'woe is me' comment I was completely unaware that anyone on this forum seriously believed the sun orbited the earth. Apparently I was WRONG on that assumption, and I will endeavor to correct those who do believe such drivel. I also apologize to you for assuming you were just being condescending towards Richard with your comment. I simply could not believe there was any legitimate reason for your making it!!!

Matthan

[God_of_Mercy]

Which brings up logic and logical thinking on our parts. Can we logically presume that God also inspired the men who actually compiled the Bible into its current form? Oh, yes, we certainly can. God knew then, just as He knows now, how important an accurate writen form of His Truth would be for ALL future generations, so the Holy Spirit assuredly influenced and actually guided the compilation and organization of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Well, If God knew all that, did He also know how important the English translation would be for His people? Oh yes, He certainly did. Then can we assume that He guided the scribes authorized by King James to the source documents they utilized? Yes, that is a certainty. We can also assume that He guided those scribes with their translations, insuring that His Truth was passed on in the process. There can be no doubt about it for us Christians.

The funny thing is, I have seen the exact same logic applied to support the idea that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Oh the irony...


KJV - And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

ASV - and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;

Living Bible - and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.

RSV - and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

The meaning is the same throughtout all these passages. I don't see the point in this...

I hope every realizes that the KJV has be revised and the orginal contained the Apocrypha. I hope all your bibles have those books or I guess they are not legit...

[arunma]

The funny thing is, I have seen the exact same logic applied to support the idea that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Oh the irony...


The meaning is the same throughtout all these passages. I don't see the point in this...

I hope every realizes that the KJV has be revised and the orginal contained the Apocrypha. I hope all your bibles have those books or I guess they are not legit...

The issue of the Apocrypha isn't the only monkey wrench in the gears of KJV-onlyism. Consider this text:
You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (St. Matthew 23:24, English Standard Version)
That was the text from my ESV Bible. It's more or less the same in most modern Bibles, as well as Young's Literal Translation and the Douay-Rheims Translation. Now here it is in the KJV:
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (St. Matthew 23:24, King James Version)
See the difference? It says "strain at" rather than "strain out." This text is a reference to the Law of Moses, specifically this text:
Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:4)
The Law of Moses listed camels as unclean animals. Now, the Jews' cleansing rituals apparently involved the removal of gnats from food, because of the belief that gnats might make the food unclean. Thus we see the reason for Jesus' woe against the Jews. Matthew's implication here is that the Jews are obsessive to remove the smallest unclean animal from their food by straining it out, but swallow a very large unclean animal even in their legalistic endeavors. The passage loses its meaning if it says that the Jews strained at a gnat. You don't strain at something that you are trying to remove, especially considering that while the word "strain" in English is a homonym, the Greek word specifically refers to filteration. Interestingly, Strong's Concordance even says that the phrase "strain at" is probably a misprint.

This isn't to say that the KJV isn't a great translation. But the idea that it alone is infallible is just not defensible.

[FallingWaters]

If God doesn't make mistakes and the bible has errors, why trust any of it? I find that all the proclaimed errors and contradictions can be easily explained in context, but any explanation is labeled an excuse. Since the bible is in effect, a messenger from God, we should hold it to the same scrutiny as a prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
If there is an error in your bible, you should dispose of it immediately.Hi. I guess I'd like to weigh in on this. I've been studying it a lot this month, and I've come to my own understanding about this.

I agree with everything you said, but the way I see it, that's not the foundational matter in question.

What we have is a collection of New Testament Greek manuscripts.
The problem is that for some reason, they slightly differ from each other. They are not all exactly, precisely the same.
Scholars want to know:
how did that happen?
which ones are correct?

If you have, let's say, 6 versions of the book of Mark (I have no idea how many there really are) and half of them have 12 extra verses added to chapter 16 at the end, but the other half do not have those extra 12 verses at the end, how would you decide if those extra 12 verses belonged there or not? How do you know some person in the past, playing fast and loose with the scriptures, for his own personal reasons, didn't add those 12 verses in there of his own authority.

(I have a mother who does this all the time. She will make something up when doing genealogy charts if she can't find the answer.)

Wouldn't you think, hmmm, that's funny, why don't these Greek manuscripts have these extra 12 verses? How did these extra 12 verses get introduced into these Greek manuscripts.

Now you find yourself needing to become Sherlock Holmes to decipher a mystery. Beacause we know, by all means, the Holy Scripture should be transmitted as God intended. There should not be differences in manuscripts. There should not be mistakes in the manuscripts! But there are. So now what do we do... we solve the mystery. We figure out how this happened, and we correct it. For, by all means, we do not want to misrepresent God by one jot or tittle.

I have some personal experience concerning how I would respond to such a situation. Just last year, I did some historical research concerning a murder that happened to a young woman in 1925. Newspapers are much more notorious for making mistakes than copiers of the Holy Scriptures. Many times we came up with conflicting information, and it was my job to discover what was true. I had to use critical thinking and detective skills to discern the truth. It was hard work finding the truth but usually you could see how one mis-truth had got spread around by one newspaper that started it.

That's how the critical text has come about. Scholars have studied the historical facts and evidence. They have seen how one mistake in a parent manuscript got passed down to all the daughter manuscripts. They have discerned that that mistake should not have been there, and indeed was not, in previous generations of the scriptures.

I don't think this takes away from the beauty of the fact that God did indeed preserve His word for us, even though it seems to have spent some time in the hands of disrespectful men who thought that altering the scripture was an okay thing to do.

No Christian doctrine was ever effected by the differences that have been found. The King James is just as acceptable as the NASB or ESV. It would be nice though, if those who prefer the KJV would stop discrediting the other translations based on other manuscripts. It's counter-productive.

[FallingWaters]

Why is the KJV the most likely source of God's Truth that we have available today? Because of historical facts, and because of the purity and holiness of God. Now, how can I justify that statement?

First, do we all agree that God inspired every word of both the Old and New Testaments? I believe we can.

Which brings up logic and logical thinking on our parts. Can we logically presume that God also inspired the men who actually compiled the Bible into its current form? Oh, yes, we certainly can. God knew then, just as He knows now, how important an accurate writen form of His Truth would be for ALL future generations, so the Holy Spirit assuredly influenced and actually guided the compilation and organization of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Well, If God knew all that, did He also know how important the English translation would be for His people? Oh yes, He certainly did. Then can we assume that He guided the scribes authorized by King James to the source documents they utilized? Yes, that is a certainty. We can also assume that He guided those scribes with their translations, insuring that His Truth was passed on in the process. There can be no doubt about it for us Christians.

Remember that the KJV was the primary English Bible for several hundred years, which God also knew would be the case. So, at the very least, we can also presume that the specific content of ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS must at least be judged by what is found in the KJV.

With that said, and knowing the warnings given to us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture (see Matt. 24:4-5, 11, 24; Romans 16:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:14-15, 5:6-7; 2 Tim. 3:13-17; etc.) let's look at just one basic verse, Rev. 1:5 (I could cite dozens and more, but this one will suffice because it clearly states the most basic tenet of Christianity, that true believers are "washed" clean of their sins by the blood of Jesus.

KJV - And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

ASV - and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;

Living Bible - and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.

RSV - and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

Now, there are those who would argue that the "meaning" is the same in all of those verses, but is it? Not by a long shot, it isn't.

There are actually a lot more reasons why the KJV is such a wonderful bulwark against the devil's deceit. That slimy serpent just loves to change a few words here and there, and change the meaning of what God intended so that it becomes something God never intended, and it serves only to deceive many away from God.

So, are you washed in the blood of Jesus?

MatthanYou have a wonderfully romantic view of the scriptures.

Your point seems to be in relation to the English translation being more theologically correct, in your opinion. You could be right about that.

The point of those who support translations based on the critical text is the authenticity of the Greek manuscripts they started with, not their skill at translating it into English.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Very nice post FallingWaters. Now I don't agree with you on which manuscripts are correct but you do bring up the issues at hand in your post. I love it when people take such passion to learning about things like this which I believe are important. Some web sites I suggest people check out would be the following. Note that I don't believe every single point that they bring up. In fact some would differ in conclusions with each other.

Bible Versions Controversy (http://www.dtl.org/versions/index.html)

Bible Research (http://www.bible-researcher.com/)

Majority Text Society (http://www.majoritytext.org/)

[Matthan]

You have a wonderfully romantic view of the scriptures.

Your point seems to be in relation to the English translation being more theologically correct, in your opinion. You could be right about that.

The point of those who support translations based on the critical text is the authenticity of the Greek manuscripts they started with, not their skill at translating it into English.
My point is that we can safely presume that the Holy Spirit guided the scribes of KJ as they sought out the earliest Greek documents then available. and, we can also be assured that He led them to everything that was important to God for inclusion within the KJV.

Many of the other "translations" were taken directly from the vulgate rather than seeking out the earliest Greek manuscripts. And I have a lot of problems with Jerome and the vulgate. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say I will not have anything to do with that document or any translation of it. My personal choice only, and others can do as they please.

Matthan

[FallingWaters]

The issue of the Apocrypha isn't the only monkey wrench in the gears of KJV-onlyism. Consider this text:You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (St. Matthew 23:24, English Standard Version)
That was the text from my ESV Bible. It's more or less the same in most modern Bibles, as well as Young's Literal Translation and the Douay-Rheims Translation. Now here it is in the KJV:Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (St. Matthew 23:24, King James Version)
See the difference? It says "strain at" rather than "strain out." This text is a reference to the Law of Moses, specifically this text:Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:4)
The Law of Moses listed camels as unclean animals. Now, the Jews' cleansing rituals apparently involved the removal of gnats from food, because of the belief that gnats might make the food unclean. Thus we see the reason for Jesus' woe against the Jews. Matthew's implication here is that the Jews are obsessive to remove the smallest unclean animal from their food by straining it out, but swallow a very large unclean animal even in their legalistic endeavors. The passage loses its meaning if it says that the Jews strained at a gnat. You don't strain at something that you are trying to remove, especially considering that while the word "strain" in English is a homonym, the Greek word specifically refers to filteration. Interestingly, Strong's Concordance even says that the phrase "strain at" is probably a misprint.

This isn't to say that the KJV isn't a great translation. But the idea that it alone is infallible is just not defensible.Cool! I did not know that about the gnat vs camel thing!

"obsessive to remove the smallest unclean animal from their food by straining it out, but swallow a very large unclean animal "

Very cool! Thanks.

[FallingWaters]

My point is that we can safely presume that the Holy Spirit guided the scribes of KJ as they sought out the earliest Greek documents then available. and, we can also be assured that He led them to everything that was important to God for inclusion within the KJV.

Many of the other "translations" were taken directly from the vulgate rather than seeking out the earliest Greek manuscripts. And I have a lot of problems with Jerome and the vulgate. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say I will not have anything to do with that document or any translation of it. My personal choice only, and others can do as they please.

MatthanI agree with you about the Vulgate.

I am a "Critical Text" person myself.
Project86 is a "Majority Text" person.
The KJV is from the "Textus Receptus" which was based mostly on Beza's edition of 1598, and in at least 60 places, the Latin Vulgate version.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I agree with you about the Vulgate.

I am a "Critical Text" person myself.
Project86 is a "Majority Text" person.
The KJV is from the "Textus Receptus" which was based mostly on Beza's edition of 1598, and in at least 60 places, the Latin Vulgate version.

Well I'm glad everyone is represented in this thread. ;)

[greeker57married]

The ASV, if I am not mistaken, is a direct translation of the Vulgate. And that says it all with respect to the untrustworthyness of the ASV, doesn't it! In my humble opinion no translation of the vulgate is worth a pound of salt. But hey, different strokes, right?

Matthan

Well friend you are mistaken. ASV of 1901 was based on the original languages, The Greek and Hebrew.

[FallingWaters]

Well friend you are mistaken. ASV of 1901 was based on the original languages, The Greek and Hebrew.One web site says this about the ASV:
"American Standard Version* (ASV–1901) also known as American Revised Version (ARV); best for literal study; based on good Greek text similar to WH; Elizabethan English; revision of KJV; American edition of ERV"
from http://web.ovc.edu/terry/interpretation/translat.htm
(an excellent quick reference resource)

Apparently, the ASV was the precursor to the NASB- a highly respected Bible translation.

[Matthan]

I stand corrected....

Matthan

[TwinCrier]

The issue of the Apocrypha isn't the only monkey wrench in the gears of KJV-onlyism. Consider this text:You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! (St. Matthew 23:24, English Standard Version)

That was the text from my ESV Bible. It's more or less the same in most modern Bibles, as well as Young's Literal Translation and the Douay-Rheims Translation. Now here it is in the KJV:Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (St. Matthew 23:24, King James Version)

See the difference? It says "strain at" rather than "strain out." This text is a reference to the Law of Moses, specifically this text:Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:4)
The Law of Moses listed camels as unclean animals. Now, the Jews' cleansing rituals apparently involved the removal of gnats from food, because of the belief that gnats might make the food unclean. Thus we see the reason for Jesus' woe against the Jews. Matthew's implication here is that the Jews are obsessive to remove the smallest unclean animal from their food by straining it out, but swallow a very large unclean animal even in their legalistic endeavors. The passage loses its meaning if it says that the Jews strained at a gnat. You don't strain at something that you are trying to remove, especially considering that while the word "strain" in English is a homonym, the Greek word specifically refers to filteration. Interestingly, Strong's Concordance even says that the phrase "strain at" is probably a misprint.

This isn't to say that the KJV isn't a great translation. But the idea that it alone is infallible is just not defensible.
Funny, because I was just thinking how strange it would be to strain your food, unless you are doing so for an infant, when that action would cause the gnat to be smashed into the food not remove it. ^_^ I think strain at makes more sense since gnats land on the food and would be plucked off or brushed away. The most important thing is that the wording of the KJV follows the manuscript and not what one translator thinks it should say instead.
Amazingly, this verse is a PERFECT example of what I see here. You freak out and go ballistic over a one time printing error, but have no problem if words like BLOOD and VIRGIN which are fundamental to the faith are ritualistically removed from your bible. :eek:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

[TwinCrier]

.

What we have is a collection of New Testament Greek manuscripts.
The problem is that for some reason, they slightly differ from each other. They are not all exactly, precisely the same.
Scholars want to know:
how did that happen?
which ones are correct?

If you have, let's say, 6 versions of the book of Mark (I have no idea how many there really are) and half of them have 12 extra verses added to chapter 16 at the end, but the other half do not have those extra 12 verses at the end, how would you decide if those extra 12 verses belonged there or not? How do you know some person in the past, playing fast and loose with the scriptures, for his own personal reasons, didn't add those 12 verses in there of his own authority.

If someone were to come across this message board, they could figure out what parts are scripture and what is our comment on it. If the MAJORITY of the TEXT agrees, but you have a few incomplete papers that have only some verses it probably isn't a copy of the entire scripture, but a study aid. Is it really a good idea to delete verses like Matthew 5:44, Matthew 18:11 etc. (http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html) You don't have to be Sherlock to figure this out. Just use the MAJORITY TEXT.

[FallingWaters]

If someone were to come across this message board, they could figure out what parts are scripture and what is our comment on it. If the MAJORITY of the TEXT agrees, but you have a few incomplete papers that have only some verses it probably isn't a copy of the entire scripture, but a study aid. Is it really a good idea to delete verses like Matthew 5:44, Matthew 18:11 etc. (http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html) You don't have to be Sherlock to figure this out. Just use the MAJORITY TEXT.I respectfully disagree with your Bible study notes/commentary assessment of the scriptures in question.

So you prefer the Majority text?

[FallingWaters]

Funny, because I was just thinking how strange it would be to strain your food, unless you are doing so for an infant, when that action would cause the gnat to be smashed into the food not remove it. ^_^ I think strain at makes more sense since gnats land on the food and would be plucked off or brushed away. The most important thing is that the wording of the KJV follows the manuscript and not what one translator thinks it should say instead.
Amazingly, this verse is a PERFECT example of what I see here. You freak out and go ballistic over a one time printing error, but have no problem if words like BLOOD and VIRGIN which are fundamental to the faith are ritualistically removed from your bible. :eek:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.htmlThe Greek does not have a separate word for "at" in the "strain at" phrase.

THAYER'S
The Greek word for strain is:
G1368
διῦλίζω
diulizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to filter through, strain through, pour through a filter, strain out

STRONG'S
G1368
διῦλίζω
diulizō
dee-oo-lid'-zo
From G1223 and ὑλίζω hulizō (to filter); to strain out. (“strain at” is probably by misprint.): - strain at [prob. by misprint].

John Wesley
"Mat 23:24 - Ye blind guides, who teach others to do as you do yourselves, to strain out a gnat - From the liquor they are going to drink! and swallow a camel - It is strange, that glaring false print, strain at a gnat, which quite alters the sense, should run through all the editions of our English Bibles."

Albert Barnes
"Mat 23:24 -
Which strain at a gnat ... - This is a proverb. There is, however, a mistranslation or misprint here, which makes the verse unmeaning. “To strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat; and so it is printed in some of the earlier versions, and so it was undoubtedly rendered by the translators. The common reading is a “misprint,” and should be corrected. The Greek means to “strain” out by a cloth or sieve."

Adam Clarke
Mat 23:24 -
"Blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - This clause should be thus translated: Ye strain out the gnat, but ye swallow down the camel. In the common translation, Ye strain At a gnat, conveys no sense. Indeed, it is likely to have been at first an error of the press, At for Out, which, on examination, I find escaped in the edition of 1611, and has been regularly continued since. There is now before me, “The Newe Testament, (both in Englyshe and in Laten), of Mayster Erasmus translacion, imprynted by Wyllyam Powell, dwellynge in Flete strete: the yere of our Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edwd. VI). moste gracious reygne.” in which the verse stands thus: “Ye blinde gides, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammel.” It is the same also in Edmund Becke’s Bible, printed in London 1549, and in several others. - Clensynge a gnatte. - MS. Eng. Bib. So Wickliff. Similar to this is the following Arabic proverb: He eats an elephant and is choked by a gnat."

John Gill
"Mat 23:24 - Ye blind guides,.... As in Mat_23:16.

who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel: the Syriac and Persic versions read the words in the plural number, gnats and camels. The Jews had a law, which forbid them the eating of any creeping thing,

Lev_11:41 and of this they were strictly observant, and would not be guilty of the breach of it for ever so much,

"One that eats a flea, or a gnat; they say (p) is מומר, "an apostate";

one that has changed his religion, and is no more to be reckoned as one of them. Hence they very carefully strained their liquors, lest they should transgress the above command, and incur the character of an apostate; and at least, the penalty of being beaten with forty stripes, save one; for,

"whoever eats a whole fly, or a whole gnat, whether alive or dead, was to be beaten on account of a creeping flying thing (q).

Among the accusations Haman is said to bring against them to Ahasuerus, and the instances he gives of their laws being different from the king's, this one (r); that "if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, זורקו ושותהו, "he strains it, and drinks it"; but if my lord the king should touch the cup of one of them, he would throw it to the ground, and would not drink of it.

Maimonides says (s),

"He that strains wine, or vinegar, or strong liquor, and eats "Jabchushin" (a sort of small flies found in wine cellars (t), on account of which they strained their wine), or gnats, or worms, which he hath strained off, is to be beaten on account of the creeping things of the water, or on account of the creeping flying things, and the creeping things of the water.

Moreover, it is said (u),

"a man might not pour his strong liquors through a strainer, by the light (of a candle or lamp), lest he should separate and leave in the top of the strainer (some creeping thing), and it should fail again into the cup, and he should transgress the law, in Lev_11:41.

To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime, as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and seeds; and yet made no conscience of doing justice, and showing mercy to men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites, like them, make a great stir, and would appear very conscientious and scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times, to commit the grossest enormities, and most scandalous sins in life,"

[BBAS 64]

If someone were to come across this message board, they could figure out what parts are scripture and what is our comment on it. If the MAJORITY of the TEXT agrees, but you have a few incomplete papers that have only some verses it probably isn't a copy of the entire scripture, but a study aid. Is it really a good idea to delete verses like Matthew 5:44, Matthew 18:11 etc. (http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html) You don't have to be Sherlock to figure this out. Just use the MAJORITY TEXT.

Good Day, Twin

Your post assumes that the standard for textaul variants is the KJV.... Historical fallacy, not to exclude this is a total disreguard of the standards used to prove out such questions.

It could be they were added by Erasmus, and the KJV translators included it part of the text, when the case may have been they were a "foot-note" or commentary by the Greek scribe.

What doctrines are taught with Matt 5:44, and Matt 18:11 being the major texts.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

My point is that we can safely presume that the Holy Spirit guided the scribes of KJ as they sought out the earliest Greek documents then available. and, we can also be assured that He led them to everything that was important to God for inclusion within the KJV.

Many of the other "translations" were taken directly from the vulgate rather than seeking out the earliest Greek manuscripts. And I have a lot of problems with Jerome and the vulgate. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say I will not have anything to do with that document or any translation of it. My personal choice only, and others can do as they please.

Matthan

Good Day, Matthan

You have made some presuptions, on what basis have you made them?

Peace to u,

Bill

[FallingWaters]

If someone were to come across this message board, they could figure out what parts are scripture and what is our comment on it. If the MAJORITY of the TEXT agrees, but you have a few incomplete papers that have only some verses it probably isn't a copy of the entire scripture, but a study aid. Is it really a good idea to delete verses like Matthew 5:44, Matthew 18:11 etc. (http://www.bible-truth.org/NIVtest.html) You don't have to be Sherlock to figure this out. Just use the MAJORITY TEXT.Now I thought you were a KJ-Only person

Did you know the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus though similar are not the same thing? The KJ is based on the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text.

I tried to explain why I don't believe in just picking the majority text where there are differences.

Back to my newspaper analogy:
One reporter reports that in my 1925 story, the conductor's name was James Stevens. It's printed in 20 papers across the country.
Another reporter reports that the conductor's name was Fred Jones. That gets printed in 5 newspapers across the country. Well, which is it?

You could just go with the majority and say the conductor's name was James Stevens. Or, you could do some study and historical research, checking census records and such, and discover that in fact, Fred Jones was the conductor for that train system in 1925, and James Stevens is a clerk they interviewed in the office! THAT is why I don't believe in just blindly following the majority.

The Founding Fathers of America didn't believe the majority was always right either. That's why America is a Republic and not a Democracy.

[RichardT]

Now I thought you were a KJ-Only person

Did you know the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus though similar are not the same thing? The KJ is based on the Textus Receptus, not the Majority Text.

I tried to explain why I don't believe in just picking the majority text where there are differences.

Back to my newspaper analogy:
One reporter reports that in my 1925 story, the conductor's name was James Stevens. It's printed in 20 papers across the country.
Another reporter reports that the conductor's name was Fred Jones. That gets printed in 5 newspapers across the country. Well, which is it?

You could just go with the majority and say the conductor's name was James Stevens. Or, you could do some study and historical research, checking census records and such, and discover that in fact, Fred Jones was the conductor for that train system in 1925, and James Stevens is a clerk they interviewed in the office! THAT is why I don't believe in just blindly following the majority.

The Founding Fathers of America didn't believe the majority was always right either. That's why America is a Republic and not a Democracy.

I don't like to treat the VERY WORDS OF GOD the same way I would treat a case to try to figure out somone's name.

[TwinCrier]

I respectfully disagree with your Bible study notes/commentary assessment of the scriptures in question.

So you prefer the Majority text?:doh:

The Greek does not have a separate word for "at" in the "strain at" phrase.

...
(“strain at” is probably by misprint.): - strain at [prob. by misprint]...

....
“To strain” at a “gnat” conveys no sense. It should have been to strain out a gnat; ...



So in short, some men can't comprehend the word at. As I said this verse is prefect for a bible corrector because it addresses the hypocrisy shared by pharasees and modernists alike. A two letter preposotion that doesn't change the meaning of a sentence in any way causes big problems, yet doctrinal changes such as casting doubt on the virgin birth (changing virgin to maiden) and removing references to the blood of Christ (Colossians 1:14) go unaddressed. I believe that "AT: is your perverbial "gnat."

Good Day, Twin

Your post assumes that the standard for textaul variants is the KJV.... Historical fallacy, not to exclude this is a total disreguard of the standards used to prove out such questions.

It could be they were added by Erasmus, and the KJV translators included it part of the text, when the case may have been they were a "foot-note" or commentary by the Greek scribe.

What doctrines are taught with Matt 5:44, and Matt 18:11 being the major texts.

Peace to u,

BillDo you have Matt 5:44 and Matt 18:11 in your bible? Read them then get back to me. I think "AT: is your perverbial "gnat" too. ^_^


Back to my newspaper analogy:
One reporter reports that in my 1925 story, the conductor's name was James Stevens. It's printed in 20 papers across the country.
Another reporter reports that the conductor's name was Fred Jones. That gets printed in 5 newspapers across the country. Well, which is it?

You could just go with the majority and say the conductor's name was James Stevens. Or, you could do some study and historical research, checking census records and such, and discover that in fact, Fred Jones was the conductor for that train system in 1925, and James Stevens is a clerk they interviewed in the office! THAT is why I don't believe in just blindly following the majority.

The Founding Fathers of America didn't believe the majority was always right either. That's why America is a Republic and not a Democracy.
The descrepency in the modern versions isn't just name changes, it's the elimination of verses and words that show the way to salvation, the deity of Christ and the evil of sin. KJV churches don't have to debate rather sin is sin. It's all plain and will still be plain next year. What did you think of http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html?

You just don't have what it takes to make me doubt my bible.

[FallingWaters]

I don't like to treat the VERY WORDS OF GOD the same way I would treat a case to try to figure out somone's name.You don't believe human beings tampered with the Word of God. Well, I guess I do. If they had not tampered with the Word of God, all the manuscripts would be exactly the same.

[BBAS 64]

I don't like to treat the VERY WORDS OF GOD the same way I would treat a case to try to figure out somone's name.

Good Day, Richard

I am waiting for you to reply to my questions post 34.

Would you be so kind...

Peace to u,

Bill

[TwinCrier]

You don't believe human beings tampered with the Word of God. Well, I guess I do. If they had not tampered with the Word of God, all the manuscripts would be exactly the same.I believe humans, under the influence of Satan, are tampering with the word of God with these modern versions that downplay the diety of Christ. But I also believe that God keeps His promises and He has promised to preserve His words (Psalm 12:6-7). If you think the bible has been tampered with, why use it at all? http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

[FallingWaters]

:doh:

So in short, some men can't comprehend the word at. As I said this verse is prefect for a bible corrector because it addresses the hypocrisy shared by pharasees and modernists alike. A two letter preposotion that doesn't change the meaning of a sentence in any way causes big problems, yet doctrinal changes such as casting doubt on the virgin birth (changing virgin to maiden) and removing references to the blood of Christ (Colossians 1:14) go unaddressed. I believe that "AT: is your perverbial "gnat."

Do you have Matt 5:44 and Matt 18:11 in your bible? Read them then get back to me. I think "AT: is your perverbial "gnat" too. ^_^


The descrepency in the modern versions isn't just name changes, it's the elimination of verses and words that show the way to salvation, the deity of Christ and the evil of sin. KJV churches don't have to debate rather sin is sin. It's all plain and will still be plain next year. What did you think of http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html?

You just don't have what it takes to make me doubt my bible.And neither am I interested in arguing with you.

I went to the site. You and I don't see eye to eye on this issue.
The site doesn't explain WHY the changes were made. If they were made to be more literal to the original Greek, then I don't have a problem with that.

[greeker57married]

You don't believe human beings tampered with the Word of God. Well, I guess I do. If they had not tampered with the Word of God, all the manuscripts would be exactly the same.

What we have are copies of the of the original manuscripts. As Scribes made copies there are variations in the copies we have. The Originals were inerrant not the copies. Scribes may have put down a similar word for the correct word because he misunderstood when a scribe read the Word as he copied it. They may have left off a word.

Here is a article dealing with errors in the manuscripts from The International Biblical Encylopedia.

II. Necessity of Sifting and Criticizing the Evidence.
Criticism from its very nature concerns itself entirely with the problems suggested by the errors of various kinds which it brings to light. In the writings of the New Testament the resources of textual evidence are so vast, exceeding, as we have seen, those of any other ancient literature, sacred or secular, that the area of actual error is relatively quite appreciable, though it must be remembered that this very abundance of textual variety ultimately makes for the integrity and doctrinal unity of the teaching of the New Testament books. Conjectural emendation which has played so large a part in the restoration of other writings has but slight place in the textual criticism of the New Testament, whose materials are so abundant that the difficulty is rather to select right renderings than to invent them. We have catalogued the principal sources of right readings, but on the most casual investigation of them discover large numbers of wrong readings mingled with the true, and must proceed to consider the sources of error or various readings, as they are called, of which approximately some 200,000 are known to exist in the various manuscripts, VSS, patristic citations and other data for the text.
"Not," as Dr. Warfield says, "that there are 200,000 places in the New Testament where various readings occur, but that there are nearly 200,000 readings all told, and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves that many various readings are counted on a single word, for each document is compared in turn with one standard and the number of its divergences ascertained, then these sums are themselves added together and the result given as the number of actually observed variations." Dr. Ezra Abbott was accustomed to remark that "about nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that, although there are various readings, no one would think of them as rival readings, and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages in which they occur." Dr. Hort's view was that "upon about one word in eight, various readings exist supported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause and look at it; about one word in sixty has various readings upon it supported by such evidence as to render our decision nice and difficult, but that so many variations are trivial that only about one word in every thousand has upon it substantial variation supported by such evidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in deciding between the readings." The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid that "the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings." Despite all this, the true scholar must be furnished rightly to discriminate in the matter of diverse readings.
From the very nature of the case it is probable that errors should be frequent in the New Testament; indeed, even printed works are not free from them, as is seen in the most carefully edited editions of the English Bible, but in manuscripts the difficulty is increased in direct proportion to the number of various copies still extant. There are two classes of errors giving rise to various readings, unconscious or unintentional and conscious or intentional.

1. First Class:
Of the first class, that of unconscious errors, there are five sorts:

(1) Errors of the Eye.
Errors of the eye, where the sight of the copyist confuses letters or endings that are similar, writing e.g. capital Εfor capital Σ; capital Οfor capital Θ; capital Αfor capital Λor capital Δ; capital Πfor capital Τand capital Ι(written together, ΤΙ); ΠΑΝ for ΤΙΑΝ; capital Μfor a double capital Λ(ΛΛ). Here should be named homoeoteleuton, which arises when two successive lines in a copy end in the same word or syllable and the eye catches the second line instead of the first and the copyist omits the intervening words as in Codex Ephraemi of Joh_6:39.

(2) Errors of the Pen.
Here is classed all that body of variation due to the miswriting by the penman of what is correctly enough in his mind but through carelessness he fails rightly to transfer to the new copy. Transposition of similar letters has evidently occurred in Codices E, M, and H of Mar_14:65, also in H2 L2 of Act_13:23.

(3) Errors of Speech.
Here are included those variations which have sprung from the habitual forms of speech to which the scribe in the particular case was accustomed and which he therefore was inclined to write. Under this head comes "itacism," arising from the confusion of vowels and diphthongs, especially in dictation. Thus, iota (ι) is constantly written as epsilon-iota (ει) and vice versa; alpha-iota (αι) for epsilon (ε); eta (η) and iota (ι) for epsilon-iota (ει); eta (η) and omicron-iota (οι) for upsilon (υ); omicron (ο) for omega (ω) and epsilon (ε) for eta (η). It is observed that in Codex Sinaiticus we have scribal preference for iota (ι) alone, while in Codex Vaticanus epsilon-iota (ει) is preferred.

(4) Errors of Memory.
These are explained as having arisen from the "copyist holding a clause or sequence of letters in his somewhat treacherous memory between the glance at the manuscript to be copied and his writing down what he saw there." Here are classed the numerous petty changes in the order of words and the substitution of synonyms, as εἶπεν for ἔφη, ἐκ for ἀπό, and vice versa.

(5) Errors of Judgment.
Under this class Dr. Warfield cites "many misreadings of abbreviations, as also the adoption of marginal glosses into the text by which much of the most striking corruption which has entered the text has been produced." Notable instances of this type of error are found in Joh_5:1-4, explaining how it happened that the waters of Bethesda were healing; and in Jn 7:53 through 8:12, the passage concerning the adulteress, and the last twelve verses of Mark.

2. Second Class:
Turning to the second class, that of conscious or intentional errors, we may tabulate:

(1) Linguistic or Rhetorical Corrections.
Linguistic or rhetorical corrections, no doubt often made in entire good faith under the impression that an error had previously crept into the text and needed correcting. Thus, second aorist terminations in α are changed to ο and the like.

(2) Historical Corrections.
Under this head is placed all that group of changes similar to the case in Mar_1:2, where the phrase "Isaiah the prophet" is changed into "the prophets."

(3) Harmonistic Corrections.
These are quite frequent in the Gospels, e.g. the attempted assimilation of the Lord's Prayer in Luke to the fuller form in Matthew, and quite possibly the addition of the words "of sin" to the phrase in Joh_8:34, "Every one that doeth sin is a slave." A certain group of harmonistic corruptions where scribes allow the memory, perhaps unconsciously, to affect the writing may rightly be classed under (4) above.

(4) Doctrinal Corrections.
Of these it is difficult to assert any unquestioned cases unless it be the celebrated Trinitarian passage (King James Version, 1Jo_5:7, 1Jo_5:8) or the several passages in which fasting is coupled with prayer, as in Mat_17:21; Mar_9:29; Act_10:30; 1Co_7:5.

(5) Liturgical Corrections.
These are very common, especially in the lectionaries, as in the beginning of lessons, and are even found in early uncials, e.g. Luk_8:31; Luk_10:23, etc.

[FreeinChrist]

I believe humans, under the influence of Satan, are tampering with the word of God with these modern versions that downplay the diety of Christ. But I also believe that God keeps His promises and He has promised to preserve His words (Psalm 12:6-7). If you think the bible has been tampered with, why use it at all? http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

I've run into some who felt that Psalm 12:6-7 was in regards to the written word - the Bible. However read the the whole psalm (in KJV) and then notw what I have made bold:

Psa 12:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.]] Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
Psa 12:3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, [and] the tongue that speaketh proud things:
Psa 12:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips [are] our own: who [is] lord over us?
Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set [him] in safety [from him that] puffeth at him.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.


He preserves them "from" - this is not about preserving the Bible, but much more than that.


http://www.freegrace.net/gill/
Ver. 7. Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" {p}; that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. {q}; and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

[FallingWaters]

So greeker57married, do you prefer the
Textus Receptus
Majority Text
Critical Text
other?

[HypoTypoSis]

There are perhaps hundreds of quotes in the KJV by pagans and other non-descript non-believers not to mention Satan and demons; surely these are not the words of God.

Do we cut these all out in order to get to only the real words of God?

If so, do we also get rid of of all the Jewish historical records?

Do we only include the exact quotes of God and of Jesus and those specific prophetic instances of, "Thus saith The Lord..." and "The word of The Lord came to me saying...", etc?

[HypoTypoSis]

Originally Posted by FallingWaters http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29113941#post29113941)
If they had not tampered with the Word of God, all the manuscripts would be exactly the same.


WHERE are all those original autographs?

WHY are those original autographs still in existence NOT in the public domain?

Or, is it simply politically correct not to go there with those sorts of questions?

more muzzling the ox, dulling the two-edged sword, rationalizing God's universal truth into relative right for the sake of world peace...

[FallingWaters]

Originally Posted by FallingWaters http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29113941#post29113941)


WHERE are all those original autographs?

WHY are those original autographs still in existence NOT in the public domain?

Or, is it simply politically correct not to go there with those sorts of questions?

more muzzling the ox, dulling the two-edged sword, rationalizing God's universal truth into relative right for the sake of world peace...None of the original autographs exist.
All we have is copies.

[TwinCrier]

There are perhaps hundreds of quotes in the KJV by pagans and other non-descript non-believers not to mention Satan and demons; surely these are not the words of God.

Do we cut these all out in order to get to only the real words of God?

If so, do we also get rid of of all the Jewish historical records?

Do we only include the exact quotes of God and of Jesus and those specific prophetic instances of, "Thus saith The Lord..." and "The word of The Lord came to me saying...", etc?
The quotes from others in the bible are words God choose to convey His message to us. Every parable, every word, was important enough for God to include it.

I don't have as much problem with those that feel another translation is better than the KJV as I do those who say there is no perfect bible. Why base your entire religious belief on a book that has error? :confused:

[greeker57married]

So greeker57married, do you prefer the
Textus Receptus
Majority Text
Critical Text
other?


I prefer the critical text because it contains all the manuscripts. The earlier text helps to get back tto the original wording were there are variations.

[japhy]

The originals are probably dust by now. That's what happens to papyrus. That's why scribes and copyists made copies. In fact, part of the law, found in Deuteronomy 17:18:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20
Joshua made a copy of the law of Moses in Joshua 8:32:
Joshua 8:30-35
Why bother copying things that would remain forever? Because although the message is eternal, the medium is not. Stones crumble, papyrus decays, memory fades. However, although the message is inerrant, the recording of it is not, because of the limitations of our humanity. If God Himself had inscribed every word of Scripture, it would be a different story altogether, but it was the hands of scribes, under the inspiration and direction of the Spirit, which penned our Scripture.

See, I don't believe that God worked a miracle whereby Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and mother of Athaliah, was both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) years of age when he began his one-year reign in Jerusalem. I believe that some scribe made an error recording that detail, since not all manuscripts of 2 Chronicles 22 say '42'. And yet, if I go so far as to enclose those two Scripture references in BIBLE tags here, I'm afraid the contradiction would rear its ugly head...
2 Kings 8:262 Chronicles 22:2
Now, what's the problem? So somebody misrecorded the age of some failed king of Judah. But if you call the Bible, the written testimony of the revelation of God, inerrant, why is there an error in it? I can safely say that the revelation of God is infallible and without error, for that revelation is the Word of God, the Logos, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.

[FallingWaters]

I prefer the critical text because it contains all the manuscripts. The earlier text helps to get back tto the original wording where there are variations.I prefer the Critical Text as well. Now if only someone would translate it into beautiful English similar to the KJV, but a little more modern like the NKJV, I'd have everything I want!

[FallingWaters]

The originals are probably dust by now. That's what happens to papyrus. That's why scribes and copyists made copies. In fact, part of the law, found in Deuteronomy 17:18:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20
Joshua made a copy of the law of Moses in Joshua 8:32:
Joshua 8:30-35
Why bother copying things that would remain forever? Because although the message is eternal, the medium is not. Stones crumble, papyrus decays, memory fades. However, although the message is inerrant, the recording of it is not, because of the limitations of our humanity. If God Himself had inscribed every word of Scripture, it would be a different story altogether, but it was the hands of scribes, under the inspiration and direction of the Spirit, which penned our Scripture.

See, I don't believe that God worked a miracle whereby Ahaziah, son of Jehoram and mother of Athaliah, was both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) years of age when he began his one-year reign in Jerusalem. I believe that some scribe made an error recording that detail, since not all manuscripts of 2 Chronicles 22 say '42'. And yet, if I go so far as to enclose those two Scripture references in BIBLE tags here, I'm afraid the contradiction would rear its ugly head...
2 Kings 8:262 Chronicles 22:2
Now, what's the problem? So somebody misrecorded the age of some failed king of Judah. But if you call the Bible, the written testimony of the revelation of God, inerrant, why is there an error in it? I can safely say that the revelation of God is infallible and without error, for that revelation is the Word of God, the Logos, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.Excellent points.

[greeker57married]

I prefer the Critical Text as well. Now if only someone would translate it into beautiful English similar to the KJV, but a little more modern like the NKJV, I'd have everything I want!

The original autographs were without error. The high degree of accuracy in the copies points to the original text being pure. There is a danger in the view that only the message is inerrant. This is subjective because each person must decern what the message is. The written Word of God that we have today is totally trustworthy and is authorative for faith and practice.

God bless
Greeker

[JPPT1974]

The original autographs were without error. The high degree of accuracy in the copies points to the original text being pure. There is a danger in the view that only the message is inerrant. This is subjective because each person must decern what the message is. The written Word of God that we have today is totally trustworthy and is authorative for faith and practice.

God bless
Greeker

The Word of God whether it is the NIV or KJB
Is always accurate and trustworthy
As well as authorative for faith and practice into
Our faith in God
Because God never compromises His principals!
Nor His promises as He is the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.