Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

Chris
And one of these truths is that God has preserved his word for us in the myriad of extant manuscripts of both the Hebrew and Greek copies.

Who is the one to say which of the “Myriad of extant manuscripts” is Gods word? They are all different and nobody has the “original autographs” to see if the “Myriad of extent manuscripts” are correct. Once again you relay on what someone else has said or written. Some go with this camp of manuscripts and others to the other camp of manuscripts then each say they are right.
Doesn’t it still come down to personal opinion as to what one wants to believe? YEP
Also, we would argue Chris just for the sake of arguing don’t you think?
Chris, Pastor Larry asked this question “Which of the 5000+ manuscripts is the perfect word of God? And how do you know? Faith.

 

I don't know and I don't really care. If that were the issue, we'd be arguing about, "Finally, an answer to the Greek text no. 4,578 issue"!!! I can read English better than I could ever read Greek. The Authorised King James Bible is the preserved and perfect English Bible. You seem to have the idea that God can only preserve the New Testament in Greek.

Just because it's in a mess it doesn't mean the revelation is imperfect!!! When Moses broke those tablets, did the information contained therein suddenly become corrupted? Did "copyist errors" appear??? My AV is in a bit of a mess - falling apart (there's a lot of tape on it!), with dog-eared pages from carrying it around in my bag, and with a few stains on the side. Yet I still believe the information contained within its pages is perfect! Creation is falling apart. However, it still PERFECTLY proves EVERYTHING it was meant to - i.e. the existance of a creator!!! (Was Romans 1 written before or after the fall?). In the same way, God can perfectly preserve ALL the revelation he put in the Bible to begin with. Here's my question to you: If creation is falling apart, and yet God still PERFECTLY preserves in it ALL the revelation there in the first place, then why hasn't he been so careful to perfectly preserve the much more important revelation - THE BIBLE???

 

My point is that you have jumped from "God inspired his word without error" to "God preserved it in the KJV" without any hint of consideration of the historical facts. The KJV did not simply appear; it was translated from a collation of manuscript evidence compiled largely by Erasmus. In effect, Erasmus sat down with conflicting manuscripts in 1500s and decided what the word of God would be for you. I do not think God can only preserve his word in Greek. But Greek is the language it was written in and you cannot dismiss the evidence of 1500 years of manuscript copied by hand. The evidence is there. At some point, you have to decide how you are going to determine how you decide between conflicting readings.

This is my point exactly. God reveals himself through creation that is not what it was originally. It is defiled and corrupt because of sin. In the same way, while the original authors were inspired and inerrant, the effects of sin do affect the copyists, as can be clearly seen from what God has preserved for us. No one cries out that God is not seen in creation ... it is still his revelation. And no one should cry out that God is not seen in modern translations. They are as much the word of God as the KJV is.

This is fruitless to continue but I will simply say that your position appears not to take into account the vast majority of evidence that God has preserved for us.

 

Ransom: Your facts are in error. The early Church had to deal with copyists' errors as well. It's not a 19th century issue.

Well they obviously didn't do it very well... or did they? At what point did we get to the stage that we coldn't know what the originals really said?

Bartholomew:Clever answer: but I have biblical evidence that God CAN and DOES perfectly translate and preserve his word. You have no biblical evidence that he doesn't.

Ransom:You're right, but it is insignificant since I do not believe that God does not preserve his word perfectly.

OK - so where is this perfectly preserved word of God? I'd like to read it!

Ransom:I also have no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that Jesus did his earthly ministry wearing a pink taffeta dress and a feather boa, but I don't lose sleep over it.

Good - you've got no evidence, and you don't believe it. In the same way, you've got no evidence that God couldn't or wouldn't perfectly preserve his word together in one place. So why don't you believe it? And if you do, PLEASE SHOW ME THIS PRESERVED BIBLE.

Ransom:If you have irrefutable evidence that God has perfectly translated and preserved his word AND he has done so in the KJV and nowhere else (in English at least), then by all means present it. The entire English-speaking world will owe you a debt of gratitude for being the first.

I have irrefutable Biblical evidence that God can and does perfectly translate his word. I also have irrefutable Biblical evidence that he promised to preserve this perfect word. Now I know that doesn't irrefutably prove that the AV is perfect, but it means we should consider the possibility. If you look at the evidence of the way God preserved it, of the fruit and godly living it brought forth, the most excellent scholars who translated it, etc. etc., this is not an unreasonable conclusion. But let me ask you a question:
"If you have irrefutable evidence that Christianity is the perfectly true religion, then by all means present it. The entire world will owe you a debt of gratitude for being the first."
You CAN'T irrefutably prove that Christianity is true!!! Can you PROVE Jesus even rose from the dead? Or that he ascended into heaven? Or that he's going to come back again??? Of course not. You can present evidence which shows it's the most likely answer, but you can't irrefuatably prove it. Faith has to come in somewhere. You are requiring proof about God's word that you don't even have for Christianity itself. Think about that.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

<< Which of the 5000+ manuscripts is the perfect word of God? And how do you know? >
< I don't know and I don't really care. >>

< The Authorised King James Bible is the preserved and perfect English Bible. >

That's fantastic reasoning, bud. You don't know which of many manuscripts is the perfect Word, but one which is only a translation can be presumed 'perfect' when there is no standard against which it can be measured. Ergo, a translation is more accuracte than anything it was translated from. That's slopbucket logic.

 

Pastor Larry:My point is that you have jumped from "God inspired his word without error" to "God preserved it in the KJV" without any hint of consideration of the historical facts.

That is true, regarding what I've said here. But that's because I can't write everything I want to about a subject in one reply, otherwise it would become a book! However, the reason for bringing it up was to prove that your position doesn't have God perfectly preserving his words. Is this the message of the Bible? Or does the Bible teach that God preserves his words perfectly? There's no use me presenting the evidence for the AV being that preserved revelation if you're unwilling to accept that there is any perfect revelation at all!

I do not think God can only preserve his word in Greek. But Greek is the language it was written in and you cannot dismiss the evidence of 1500 years of manuscript copied by hand. The evidence is there.

I don't dismiss it; that's why I don't believe in the NIV, which disregards the testimony of 5000+ manuscripts in favour of a handfull!

Bartholomew:Here's my question to you: If creation is falling apart, and yet God still PERFECTLY preserves in it ALL the revelation there in the first place, then why hasn't he been so careful to perfectly preserve the much more important revelation - THE BIBLE???

Pastor Larry:This is my point exactly. God reveals himself through creation that is not what it was originally.

EXACTLY!!! God's word wasn't originally given in the AV, but that doesn't mean it can't be there now!!!

It is defiled and corrupt because of sin. In the same way, while the original authors were inspired and inerrant,

I'd like to see the Biblical evidence that only the original authors were inspired and inerrant. I think you'll find 2 Tim 3:16 isn't talking about "originals"!

the effects of sin do affect the copyists, as can be clearly seen from what God has preserved for us.

Quite. And the effects of God's preservation can be clearly seen in the AV God has preserved for us.

No one cries out that God is not seen in creation ... it is still his revelation. And no one should cry out that God is not seen in modern translations. They are as much the word of God as the KJV is.

EVERYTHING originally revealed in nature is still revealed there. Perfectly. A dying tree just as much proves the creator as a living one. In fact, you could argue that MORE revelation is now preserved in nature - becuase it reveals the fall. But you are saying that, whilst nature can preserve EVERYTHING it was meant to inspite of the fall, God's word can't!!! It is irrelevant that much of God's word is in the new versions. The question is, do we believe in a God who can and does preserve it ALL? He did so in creation. Why not the bible?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Pastor Larry:Which of the 5000+ manuscripts is the perfect word of God? And how do you know?
Bartholomew:I don't know and I don't really care...The Authorised King James Bible is the preserved and perfect English Bible.
Christian Cynic:That's fantastic reasoning, bud. You don't know which of many manuscripts is the perfect Word, but one which is only a translation can be presumed 'perfect' when there is no standard against which it can be measured. Ergo, a translation is more accuracte than anything it was translated from. That's slopbucket logic.

I didn't say that. I said I didn't know which one (or two or two thousand) manuscripts were perfect. But that doesn't mean the AV is more accurate than the things it was translated from! Indeed, it is slopbucket logic. But that's your logic, not mine. And anyway, why can't it be true? The trouble with you lot is that you refuse to consider the effect of God's preservation. God, who spoke the universe into existance; who won't even let a sparrow fall to the ground without his consent; this God you refuse to even ALLOW to put his Bible perfectly into the international language so that the ordinary man can have it together in one place. If you did allow this, we'd be arguing about all the evidnece that suggests it likely that the AV is this Bible. (Well, if you did accept it, I don't think we would be arguing at all). But instead, I just end up being demanded to prove something to you that you can't even prove about Christianity itself. Well the living Word didn't jump through such hoops on request, and neither will the written word. There comes a point where God requires faith.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Well they obviously didn't do it very well... or did they?

I see no cause for complaint.

At what point did we get to the stage that we coldn't know what the originals really said?

Who ever said we couldn't know? There are only two groups of people I have ever encountered who have tried to claim the manuscript evidence leaves us with complete uncertainty: the Roman Catholics (who therefore remedy this alleged problem by arbitrarily attributing infallibility in the teaching Magisterium), and KJV-onlyists (who therefore remedy this alleged problem by arbitrarily attributing infallibility in the translators of the KJV).

Lack of certainty does not equal complete uncertainty.

OK - so where is this perfectly preserved word of God? I'd like to read it!

It's in the Bible.

Good - you've got no evidence, and you don't believe it. In the same way, you've got no evidence that God couldn't or wouldn't perfectly preserve his word together in one place. So why don't you believe it?

Because a belief that Jesus did his ministry in women's clothes, and belief that God perfectly preserved his word in one place (why don't you just come out and say the KJV since that's what you believe?) have one very important thing in common: they are both make believe.

I do not believe either of these things, not because I lack evidence that they are true, but because they are inventions of men.

Now I know that doesn't irrefutably prove that the AV is perfect

Not unless you're going to fill in a major logical gap, no. In the meantime, I will feel free to disbelieve in KJV-onlyism as an unproven, unsupported, human invention I have no need to follow.

 

Bartholomew said:

EXACTLY!!! God's word wasn't originally given in the AV, but that doesn't mean it can't be there now!!!

I didn't realize "God's Word" was a contingent property, or that it was possessed by only one Bible text at a time. Did something magically cease to be God's Word when the KJV was published?

 

When I was a child, my Pastor gave me an NASB bible, the version I still use to this day. He told me that it would be a little easier for me to understand, and thus better able to understand what was being taught in Sunday School, he said the KJV was ok too, as was any version, but he stressed that the words were only part of the job of being a Christian, it also required me to believe in my heart without doubt that Jesus Christ was my Lord & Saviour, he died on the cross to save me from my sins, and he rose again 3 days later to prove that eternal life existed. Another part was to try my best to live a life like Jesus lived, even if I failed at times, it was ok, as long as I did my best to try and not repeat the mistake, and if I failed, it was ok to come to God and ask him to forgive me for failing, and He would understand that I am trying my best, and as long as I did everything I could to be like His Son Jesus, I would be ok! I remember as the years went on, he would tell us kids that even though the bible said certain things such as tithing, it was ok not to have a job, and not tithe (seeing as we were children) But we could do other things, like help the church by washing the bus or mowing the lawns, or maybe go to the old folks home and visit with the people, and help them with the things they were doing. He said that the bible said many things, and even if we didn't understand, or if we didn't have the ability to do certain things, it was what we could do that mattered. He said the best we can do is read the bible every day, and be good people. And for doing that God would be pleased. He said some folks will be teachers of the bible, and some folks will be learner's of the bible, either way as long as you believe, and follow, God will do the rest.

 

Pastor Larry
The KJV did not simply appear; it was translated from a collation of manuscript evidence compiled largely by Erasmus. In effect, Erasmus sat down with conflicting manuscripts in 1500s and decided what the word of God would be for you.

Thank you Pastor Larry, maybe I can make my point by using your wording. ALL VERSIONS did not simply appear; they were translated from a collation of manuscript evidence compiled largely by MEN down through time. In effect, these MEN sat down with CONFLICTING MANUSCRIPTS and decided what the word of God would be for EVERYBODY.

 

of course He did--but just as in Creation where He doesn't point out which part of a leaf of a given tree isn't fallen, He doesn't tell us which fragment of which manuscript underlying which edition of which text of which version of what year happens to be THE perfect one.

which doesn't mean that the whole enterprise is hopeless--nothing that a Spirit-illumined, diligent, intelligent, collaborative person cldn't figure out.

 

Forever settled in heaven:which doesn't mean that the whole enterprise is hopeless--nothing that a Spirit-illumined, diligent, intelligent, collaborative person cldn't figure out.

So, if you can "figure it out", please figure out what the REAL words of God are for me, and put them in a book so I can read them. Then I won't have to worry if God really did say all the things the NIV tells me he didn't, but the AV says he did; and we won't need this debate.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Bartholomew: At what point did we get to the stage that we coldn't know what the originals really said?
Ransom: Who ever said we couldn't know? There are only two groups of people I have ever encountered who have tried to claim the manuscript evidence leaves us with complete uncertainty:

Where did you get that phrase "complete uncertainty"? I never used it. You've set up a straw man. The fact is that your idea leaves SOME uncertainty as to what the words of God really are. Not very good if we want to search the scriptures to see if any particular thing is so? Is it???

Bartholomew: OK - so where is this perfectly preserved word of God? I'd like to read it!
Ransom: It's in the Bible.

Oh JOY! Isn't that wonderful?! SO WHICH BIBLE IS IT??????????????? Come on. Be honest. You don't really think this perfectly preserved bible actually exists, do you? If so, PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I CAN GET ONE, AND I'LL READ IT!!!

Bartholomew: Good - you've got no evidence, and you don't believe it. In the same way, you've got no evidence that God couldn't or wouldn't perfectly preserve his word together in one place. So why don't you believe it?
Ransom: Because a belief that Jesus did his ministry in women's clothes, and belief that God perfectly preserved his word in one place (why don't you just come out and say the KJV since that's what you believe?) have one very important thing in common: they are both make believe.

Brilliant - avoid the question. At this point I'm not arguing for the perfection of the AV. I'M ARGUING FOR THE PERFECTION OF SOMETHING. If you believe that NOTHING can be the perfect preserved word of God, PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. However, you have none. THAT idea is like believing Jesus taught in womens' clothes. It is only AFTER you accept that the infinite God might have perfectly preserved his word in one place that I'll show you my evidence that of all the Bibles in the world, the AV is the most likely to be it. But you're not interested in that. You want ABSOLUTE PROOF. Just like the Pharisees. Well, I'll give you ABSOLUTE PROOF of that the minute you give me ABSOLUTE PROOF of Christianity itself.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

me? i thot the Douay-Rheims n KJB translators already did that, and so did the RSV and NIV translators, together with Jerome, Erasmus, Westcott, n Metzger.

rather than hiss Yea hath God said, isn't it more profitable to pick up the good book in whichever version n read it for what it is?

 

And my question is, why do you trust Erasmus (who was working with a limited amount of manuscript evidence)? Why do you not trust others who were working with much more evidence? Why don't you rather trust Robinson Pierpont? Why don't you trust Hodges and Farstad? Why don't you trust Nestle and Aland? Why don't you trust the UBS? The answer is probably because you have been taught that Erasmus was right. However, that is a very disputable (if not refutable at some points) proposition. The Word of God was not limited to the choices that Erasmus made. He had no inspiration or infallible guidance regarding his choices. Therefore, to argue that the KJV is the perfect Word of God depends on something that didn't exist, namely the infallible leading of Erasmus coupled with the infallible leading of the Anglican translators. I do not see any biblical or historical evidence for either one.

What is remarkable is that all these texts listed above come to remarkable unanimity through the God's preservation of the multitude of manuscript evidence.

 

from Strong's

logos commonly translated "word"-
of speech
1-a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
2-what someone has said
a- a word
b- the sayings of God
c- decree, mandate or order
d- of the moral precepts given by God
e- Old Testament prophecy given by he
prophets
f- what is declared, a thought, declaration,
aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a
maxim

Unless God divinely intervenes, it is impossible for anyone to determine with 100% certainty what the exact "words of God" were originally ("words" defined by definition #1). But we can and do have the Word of God (word defined by definition #2) in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, etc.

It seems that one of the basic false premises of KJVOnlyism is the notion that only one set of words (definition #1) can accurately communicate the Word (definition #2). We know this is not true. Someone's word can be communicated in many different ways without ceasing to be their word. We should be very thankful for this since if it were not true, we could not possess God's Word in English.

By asking for the "REAL" words of God, you are asking presumptively for something that God chose not to give mankind. If you would simply be satisfied with the REAL Word of God, you could be confident of having it anytime you sat down to read the KJV or any other reliable translation of the Bible.

 

Pastor Larry
And my question is, why do you trust Erasmus (who was working with a limited amount of manuscript evidence)? Why do you not trust others who were working with much more evidence? Why don't you rather trust Robinson Pierpont? Why don't you trust Hodges and Farstad? Why don't you trust Nestle and Aland? Why don't you trust the UBS?

That is my POINT. Everybody has to base what they know, studied or learned on what someone else has done down through time.

Pastor Larry
The answer is probably because you have been taught that Erasmus was right.

I said that also. “No matter how you slice it, dice it, or chop it, it still comes down to what each one has learned and chosen to believe to be correct from some one we’ve been taught by, learned out of a book some one has written whether new or old, and on and on it goes.”
How do you know what you do? You had to study and come to a conclusion. Nobody on this board or anywhere else was born with the knowledge they have.

Pastor Larry
However, that is a very disputable (if not refutable at some points) proposition. The Word of God was not limited to the choices that Erasmus made. He had no inspiration or infallible guidance regarding his choices.

As I said that early to Chris, “Some go with this camp of manuscripts and others to the other camp of manuscripts then each say they are right.” And each gives the reasons they are right.

Pastor Larry
The Word of God was not limited to the choices that Erasmus made. He had no inspiration or infallible guidance regarding his choices.

Name any that worked on any bible that did. Once again it is whom we choose to believe.

Pastor Larry
Therefore, to argue that the KJV is the perfect Word of God depends on something that didn't exist, namely the infallible leading of Erasmus coupled with the infallible leading of the Anglican translators.

That is a question maybe some one can help me with. Don’t agree with the Anglican translators, because they were Anglican, don’t agree with the RCC, because they are RC, I’ve read this several times on the BB. But was it not these groups that basically put these manuscripts of sorts together?

Pastor Larry
I do not see any biblical or historical evidence for either one.

Again Pastor my point that I’ve been trying to make its what we have been taught, how we have been taught, by whom we have been taught, what we have studied and what each person chooses to believe. Would you agree on that?

[ May 15, 2002, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: ddavis ]

 

I understand and agree with what you are saying as far as what we are taught. The point I am making is that the perfection of teh KJV is not something that is supported from Scripture. People believe it, not becuase they find it in Scripture, but because they have been told it and never checked it out by Scripture.

I think the point that we would make is this: People decry the Alexandrian type manuscripts becasue they were kept in the vatican library for 1400 years or more (free from editing and copying during all that time and therefore found in the same condition as they were when they went in). These same people sing the praises of Anglican translators who were negligibly different than the Catholics who kept the Alexandrian manuscripts in their library. In other words, it is a fallacious argument to argue that the RCC corrupted teh Alexandrain texts because they are Catholic while arguing that the Anglican translators were inspired or supernaturally prevented from error by the Holy Spirit. Both Anglicans and the RCC are essentially the same.

The collection of manuscripts available today come from a wide range of sources across the theological spectrum.

BTW, the Alexandrian manuscripts date to the 2-4 century, before the Catholic church became what it is today. During all those years, those manuscripts were not being touched or changed by the RCC.

Pastor Larry
I do not see any biblical or historical evidence for either one.

Again Pastor my point that I’ve been trying to make its what we have been taught, how we have been taught, by whom we have been taught, what we have studied and what each person chooses to believe. Would you agree on that?[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Bartholomew said:

Where did you get that phrase "complete uncertainty"?

There is only one work of literature known as the Bible; that is the one I am talking about.

Come on. Be honest.

After you. Please be intellectually honest and define "the Bible." Are you referring to the literary work known by that name, or are you referring to a specific subset of all copies of the Bible - particular edition, copy, translation, whatever?

You don't really think this perfectly preserved bible actually exists, do you?

Yep, it exists collectively throughout the entire set of physical copies.

Brilliant - avoid the question.

Nope, just putting things in the proper perspective. You're getting your blood pressure up over something someone made up. It certainly isn't in the Bible, and therefore it is no necessary part of the Christian faith.

At this point I'm not arguing for the perfection of the AV. I'M ARGUING FOR THE PERFECTION OF SOMETHING.

The perfection of what? I've been up front about the KJV-only issue being a load of malarkey - what are you arguing for? Specifically.

If you believe that NOTHING can be the perfect preserved word of God,

I don't.

PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR BIBLICAL EVIDENCE.

So ask someone who does to defend their view.

However, you have none. THAT idea is like believing Jesus taught in womens' clothes.

Exactly. I don't believe either, because they are both a hilarious load of nonsense, and therefore I have no reason to defend either or to provide evidence for them.

It is only AFTER you accept that the infinite God might have perfectly preserved his word in one place that I'll show you my evidence that of all the Bibles in the world, the AV is the most likely to be it.

I have accepted that he might have all along.

However, there is a difference between might have or could have and did.

However, that is beside the point. You said that if I believe God might have done so, you would provide your evidence. So cough up.