SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Is their proof of the kjv text before 400 A.D?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:


Well ccchhhrrriiisss, here we are again. You always post that you have studied this issue yourself, and come to the conclusion that the word of God found in the King James is the same as the Word of God found in the NIV, just "a different source".

ccchhhrrriiisss posted:
Like I have said, I prefer to read the KJV as a good and old scholarly translation taken from a particular set of sources and the NIV as a good and newer scholarly translation taken from a different set of sources. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think otherwise, yet I have studied this with great honesty and effort. I’ve even read your posts, and cannot cast my lot with your perception (or the conclusion of those from whom you have drawn your argument and criticisms). However, if I ever find some evidence that is so concrete – so indisputable – that would cause me to embrace such a notion with finality, I will let you know. Until then, I just feel uncomfortable with your insistence regarding any sort of final judgment on something that cannot be made on this side of having all of the facts (unless, of course, you have some sort of ancient manuscripts by which to compare Erasmus’ translation efforts with).

Walter continues:

Please reveal to us what books and reference material you have studied to come to your conclusions above? I have listed some of mine, but you never listed any of yours. What on earth can you have read & studied to lead you to the conclusion that the Protestant Church ever accepted the newer versions of the Bible? The version they rejected was the 1881 Revision of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort. Since all of the newer versions created today rely on the 1881 text to create all these "new" "translations" (ASB, NIV, The Message, etc. etc. etc), they also reject all the new ones as well!

[b]Also, please post to us what Bible Scripture supports your position that God will NOT PRESERVE His Word.[/b]

You thoughtful and consise reponse would be appreciated.

Sincerley,

Walter

Please see attached Letters to the Editor from the February 8, 1881 edition of the New York Times:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor[/url]


 2008/10/31 0:38
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4584


 Re:

Waltern...

Quote:
Well ccchhhrrriiisss, here we are again. You always post that you have studied this issue yourself, and come to the conclusion that the word of God found in the King James is the same as the Word of God found in the NIV, just "a different source".

Yes, here we are again...and again...and again. Haven't we seen this patch of sand before? I didn't say that they were the same...word for word. I said that they are [u]different[/u] because they are derived from [u]different[/u] sources.
Quote:
Please reveal to us what books and reference material you have studied to come to your conclusions above? I have listed some of mine, but you never listed any of yours. What on earth can you have read & studied to lead you to the conclusion that the Protestant Church ever accepted the newer versions of the Bible? The version they rejected was the 1881 Revision of the New Testament by Westcott and Hort. Since all of the newer versions created today rely on the 1881 text to create all these "new" "translations" (ASB, NIV, The Message, etc. etc. etc), they also reject all the new ones as well!

Brother, I have done this enough over the past five years with you and a guy who sounded remarkably a lot like you. I don't want to have to include all of the sources for my own inquiry.

However, I did consult the translators of several versions (including the NIV). I found a list of individuals who are generally regarded as "experts" in the field of manuscripts and translation...and corresponded via email and snail mail. I viewed scanned pages from a major Archives of a first edition of the KJV. I viewed books -- from all sides of the debate -- including those very opinionated yet unacademic attacks on all non-KJV bibles.

Since I worked in a University Archives, I was able to read several biographies about Erasmus...and some of his own rare writings as well (including [i]The Praise of Folly[/i], [i]Handbook of a Christian Soldier[/i], and [i]Education of a Christian Prince[/i]) which demonstrated the extent of his doctrinal views. These are also available [url=http://www.erasmus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=site.show&CTX_ID=2DDCF433F1F6C16942AA739E59DAFB8E]here[/url] for all to view. I read a translation of his work [i]Explanation of the Apostles Creed[/i] in which Erasmus perpetuated a belief in "divine revelation" apart from the Bible (usually through "inspired" Roman Catholic traditions) and called anyone who objected to worship of the Virgin Mary to be blasphemers and heretics (to which, in the foreward of the translation, we find that Martin Luther responded to the work by calling Erasmus a liar and "the voice of Satan").

In addition, I contacted individuals within the Oxford University Press regarding a few questions about the KJV. I obtained a list of changes from the original 1611...viewed them in digitized images...and then compared them with today's regular KJV. I also viewed a list of "mistakes" in the KJV -- from obvious number problems to the inclusion of the pagan word "Easter" in place of "Passover."

I have read the preface to the KJV by the translators. I also read several books regarding the efforts to complete the KJV...and the predetermined "rules" implemented by King James and the official state Church heirarchy. I read biographies of (and writings from) some of the translators themselves -- including those who held to "high church" traditions (including pagan traditions regarding the Eucharist and adoration). I even read criticisms of the KJV by contemporary 17th Century scholars and Church leaders who complained that the "modern version" (the KJV) was no better than the Bishop's Bible (from which some translation was borrowed).

I read the criticisms of Wescott and Hort, and endeavored to ascertain the validity of the criticisms. I even read the conspiracy theories from anti-NIV activists and wrote the translators and workers themselves in an attempt to find the truth (including email correspondance with the infamous woman who later became a lesbian but was consulted by the committee while she was married).

I have read other earlier versions taken from similar sources than the KJV (such as one in Spanish). I even noted the differences in rendering from the Greek into Spanish, etc...

This list could go on and on because my interest in it has gone on and on. In fact, I even considered the issue as a possible topic when I wrote my graduate thesis (since I had already performed quite a bit of research); however, the idea was rejected at the university I attended and was forced to research another topic. I later considered the topic for my PhD dissertation, but realized that I would probably be hard pressed to find how it was related to my PhD coursework.
Quote:
Also, please post to us what Bible Scripture supports your position that God will NOT PRESERVE His Word.

This is simply untrue, brother. I said that I believe that God does preserve His Word -- but that the KJV, Erasmus' [i]Textus Receptus[/i] (or any other version) is not exclusively it. Could I say this any clearer?

As for your attached "Letter to the Editor," all I can ask is "So what?" It is just a letter from a very opinionated person. He/She sounds almost as angry as many people in 1611 were with the KJV! I wonder: Do you have a link to the actual article for which this unsigned letter writer is responding?

Yet brother, please know that I don't want to engage in an endless debate with you for which there seems to be no end. All I can do is encourage you to perform REAL research (and not just reading a few biased or opinionated books and articles). You can do everything that I did. In fact, you may even arrive at a different opinion than I did! My opinion, after all of my research, is simply that I haven't seen anything that would cause me to simply reject or dismiss either version (or sets of sources). I also would hesitate to spread slander about any version of which I am not entirely sure of its authenticity. I would hate to find myself ridiculing a work that might have been at least partially (within its 66 books, or in the case of the original KJV, 77 books) have been ordained by God.

I prefer to opt out of this discussion now. I might jump in again, but only if I feel the need. I just don't like what I see to be an attack on other versions offered as a defense of a version like the KJV. I love you, brother, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your methods and responses.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/10/31 4:26Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
[u]Waltern's[/u]: Ron supports the new versions, the same as you do. In fact, as I look back at the prior battles about “Which Versions” on Sermonindex, he is right there along side of you, almost everytime, agreeing with you and you agreeing with him, and both of you disagreeing that the Textus Receptus is the Preserved Word of God, and placing the inferior Codex Vaticanius and Sinaiticus equal to the preserved text, the Textus Receptus



This is not at all my understanding of Ron Bailey's position. I would recommend looking at Ron's

[url=http://biblebasesecondthoughts.blogspot.com/]CODEX Sinaiticus Parts 1-3[/url].


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/10/31 9:04Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
This is not at all my understanding of Ron Bailey's position.


Nor is it mine. It would behoove you to check out the link Robert provided. You are welcome to be KJV-Only and participate here, but when the KJV-O propaganda is perpetuated post after post, cut-and-pasted from other sources, and robotically thrust before our eyes in obnoxious fonts and colors, please understand that you are not going to have many sympathizers on SI.

We've been through this time and time again. Like music, this Bible version war is a huge and unecessary divider for God's children. If the Lord is ready to move a person or convert him/her to a specific Bible version He will do so without all your cut-and-pasting and bold-font rhetoric. The truth is that when the Lord matures a person, He divorces him or her from the KJVO fallacy and, in fact, opens their eyes from this particular stance.

I am a KJV reader because I love the majesty of prose, the absolute beauty and glory the writers infused into this translation and how, above all other translations it seems (for me, at least) to exude the fragrance of Christ's deity. But as far as being the perfect Word of God, I believe this concept is absurd to apply to any specific interpretation; be it KJV, NASB, the Geneva, etc. You are free to disagree, but you are not free to turn this into an agenda and go bonkers with the fonts and colors and cut-and-pasting (especially without citing the source) and turning this into a KJV-O proselytizing camp.

Waltern, please take these matters to heart, before further intervention becomes necessary.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/10/31 9:50Profile
paulamicela
Member



Joined: 2008/6/12
Posts: 40


 Re:

Thank you very much, PaulWest!

-Paul


_________________
Paul W. Lamicela

 2008/10/31 10:06Profile









 Re: Which Version

From Walter to: Paul West, RobertW, Paulamicela, &, ccchhhrrriiiss

I will just have to agree to disagree with all of those against the King James Version, the Textus Receptus, as not agreeing that it is the very word of God,[b] preserved by God as He promised us He would thoughout the Bible.[/b]

What I have found, in my studies, is a historical link that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Protestant Church of the Reformation in 1881 rejected the Work of Westcott and Hort the same month that it was published. Does that mean anything to anyone here? I think it does matter to those that take the time to think it through. The “revision of the New Testament” was never welcomed into the Protestant body of Christ in the 19th century.You should read the critism of it in the attached link to the 1881 New York Times! It started to get some interest in the early 1900’s (20th Century). By the 1970’s with Billy Grahams support of the “Living Bible” it started getting greater and greater support. Today, it is unquestioned.

The apostasy that surrounds us today is prophesized in the Bible. It was actually already taking place in Paul’s time, where men were changing Doctrine, were changing the very Word of God.

God is sovereign, and can do anything to draw the lost to Himself. He can draw men to Himself by their reading corrupt Bibles that are not his preserved Word, but only parts of his preserved words, as found in the NIV and other newer versions. God meets people in their dreams, to reveal himself to them and to bring them to salvation. God sends his Angels to witness to the lost. God uses circumstances to draw the lost to Himself. He sends believers (us) out to witness to the lost, each day as we go to work or play. God can really do anything because He is God.

However, in my lifetime I have personally seen many men and women who read and study their Bibles that do not trust it to be the very Word of God ANYMORE. The footnotes in their newer versions bring doubt to their minds if they are reading the real thing (ie "not found in the oldest manuscripts, etc). To the liberal Christian, this is a good thing. Liberals always need "wiggle room". However, God’s Word gives none of us wiggle room. God’s Word is God’s law.

This is what the Protestant Church of the Reformation, in the year 1881, had to say about the issue of the newer versions. They rejected the first revision by Westcott & Hort as not being the Word of God found in the King James Bible. Since they rejected that work, they also reject all of the newer versions that have relied on this same text. It wasn't a "nice" rejection of the Westcott and Hort Revision of the New Testament- it was an outright rejection, referring to it is a copy (plagarism) of the 1808 Belshams Unitarian New Testament. In 1881 they were very direct when anyone changed God's preserved Word, the Textus Receptus, the King James Bible. However, today, we have to be nice and not offend anyone, lest we hurt anyone's feelings, no matter what they have done to it. So be it.


This again is the link to what the Protestant Church of the Reformation had to say about all of the newer versions, and it reflects my opinion as well. We all have free will, and we can all do as we well please in regards to this issue. As for me, I would rather read God's Preserved Word, the King James Bible:

[url=http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9D0CEEDA153BE033A25757C1A9649C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]Letters to the Editor[/url]

([i]Moderator correction; Long URL's make the page and subsequent following pages "wide". Please use the "URL" box in replies and covert to smaller headings/titles.[/i])

This is the Unitarian Bible of 1808 that the Revised Version was a copy of :

http://www.bible-researcher.com/belsham.html

[b]There is a Unitarian Church not to far from my home. As I pass it each day, I notice the big sign out front supporting GAY Marriage. These are some of the beliefs of the Unitarian Church:[/b]

Unitarianism as a theology is the belief in the single personality of God, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity (three persons in one God).[1] It is the philosophy upon which the modern Unitarian movement was based, and, according to its proponents, is the original form of Christianity. Unitarian Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as found in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and hold him up as an exemplar. Adhering to strict monotheism, they maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, perhaps even a supernatural being, but not God himself. Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus. Their theology is thus distinguishable from the theology of Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, and other Christian denominations which hold the Trinity doctrine as a core belief.

Some Christians hold a unitarian theology in that they see God as a single person, and are thus antitrinitarian, but because they perceive Jesus to be God himself do not fall into the general theology discussed here, which sees Jesus as subordinate to God and a finite being. Instead see: Sabellianism, Oneness theology, Oneness Pentecostalism, Monarchianism, Binitarianism.

The term "Unitarian" (with an upper case "U") usually refers to the liberal branch of this theology, but the term "unitarian" (lower case "u") is sometimes used descriptively to refer to anyone adhering to the teaching of the single personhood of God.

Liberal Unitarians sum up their faith as "the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus." Historically, they have encouraged unorthodox views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas. Although there is flexibility in the nuances of belief or basic truths for the individual Unitarian Christian, general principles of faith have been recognized as a way to bind the group in some commonality. Adherents generally accept religious pluralism and find value in all teachings, but remain committed to their core belief in Christ's teachings. Liberal Unitarians value a secular society in which government stays out of religious affairs.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[b]What has happened to the Unitarians has now happened to much of the body of Christ, who reject Sound Doctrine, as the Unitarians have done since at least 1808, and have relied on the minority text, the text also used by the revision committee, that is used in all the newer versions. Can I do anything to stop this? No, not really because God, who knows the end from the beginning prophesized of this very event in the end times. It is my purpose to only guide some to the true Word of God, the King James Bible. God has promised us throughout his Word that he will PRESERVE HIS WORD,(The Bible)and therefore His Word does not need to be RESTORED by "textural critics".[/b]

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do". Hebrews 4:12-13

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/10/31 11:54









 Re:Philogos



To RobertW:

I applaud Ron for his post about the corrupt Sinaiticus text. However, this was only posted this month on his website, on October 15th, 2008 and surely does not represent his position held in the past. Also his current position does not agree with ccchhhrrriiisss, like it did in the past. By looking at past battles about the King James Bible, Ron Bailey (Philogos) always sided with the newer versions and took part in ending (silencing) the thread, side by side with ccchhhrrriiisss and others.

Again, I applaud Ron for his change of position on this very important issue.

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
Quote:
[u]Waltern's[/u]: Ron supports the new versions, the same as you do. In fact, as I look back at the prior battles about “Which Versions” on Sermonindex, he is right there along side of you, almost everytime, agreeing with you and you agreeing with him, and both of you disagreeing that the Textus Receptus is the Preserved Word of God, and placing the inferior Codex Vaticanius and Sinaiticus equal to the preserved text, the Textus Receptus



This is not at all my understanding of Ron Bailey's position. I would recommend looking at Ron's

[url=http://biblebasesecondthoughts.blogspot.com/]CODEX Sinaiticus Parts 1-3[/url].

 2008/11/1 0:52
MikeH
Member



Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116


 Re:

Waltern wrote

Quote:
The Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation agrees 100% with your #1 position above. It totally accepts the King James Bible as the Received Text, received from the true Church, the very WORD of GOD.

Who are the "Christian Church of the Protestant Reformation"? If you are thinking of the original reformers, they would respect the Luther translation in German of 1534 or his final edited version produced in 1545. They might alternatively respected the Zürich bible of 1531 by Zwingli in Swiss-German. But none of the original reformers would have had access to the AV since it was produced several decades after most of their deaths and in a language that many of them did not speak.

If it is not these people, then what is this group you are referring to?

Mike

PS You didn't address my earlier question that at least 73% of the world are incapable of reading the AV.

PPS Since there are about 7,000 different languages in the world of which only about 400, even today, have complete bibles, do you have a list of translations that the CCotPR approve for even 100 of these languages for those who cannot read the AV?

 2008/11/1 9:25Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi Waltern,

Quote:
Waltern's; Again, I applaud Ron for his change of position on this very important issue.



You seem to have misinterpreted Ron Bailey's beliefs concerning the KJV. He is very much an AV (KJV) advocate and always has been. But he has consistently pointed out that the KJV is not a perfect translation. It is particularly bent towards a hierarchy form of Church government, which the Geneva Bible is [u]not[/u].

Unlike most KJV advocates i have come across, Ron is not [i]KJV only[/i]. In fact, he is a very learned man that is capable of understanding and debating issues concerning the various manuscripts because he can read Greek. So he has a powerful grasp of the issues. So he can see when the KJV shifts away from the actual translation of the text.

Ron, as myself, believe the Majority Text form is the best. This is not the same as the Textus Receptus, but there is a link. What I reject is the newer critical text approach to discovering the actual original complete New Testament. Again, though very pro-KJV I am also not "KJV only" and though I share with you in my believe that God has protected His word, I do not feel it necessary to take a TR and KJV only position.

The challenge is how to be pro-KJV and then have to turn and defend against radical KJV only proponents. This is why you perceive that Ron was not KJV. It is because of the unfortunate position he has been often put in to deal with these radical ideas.






_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/1 11:19Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4584


 Re:

Hi RobertW...

Quote:
You seem to have misinterpreted Ron Bailey's beliefs concerning the KJV. He is very much an AV (KJV) advocate and always has been. But he has consistently pointed out that the KJV is not a perfect translation. It is particularly bent towards a hierarchy form of Church government, which the Geneva Bible is not.

Unlike most KJV advocates i have come across, Ron is not KJV only. In fact, he is a very learned man that is capable of understanding and debating issues concerning the various manuscripts because he can read Greek. So he has a powerful grasp of the issues. So he can see when the KJV shifts away from the actual translation of the text.

Exactly. I really don't know what Brother Waltern has read from Brother Ron. From what I understand, Brother Ron is quite the advocate of the KJV and the majority text -- just not [i]KJV-only[/i]. Although I don't agree with all of Brother Ron's conclusions, I think that he gives a very persuasive and articulate argument.

I think that this is why my perspective is so different. I just haven't seen anything that would cause me to reach an ultimate conclusion of the matter -- and I have performed extensive research (far more than the "common" man). I certainly strive to understand all sides in this issue. Yet I still cannot throw my lot to any side -- since there just seems to be so many unknowns in regard to the underlying question(s).

Ironically, Brother Walter speaks so highly of the Protestant Reformation. Yet the founder of the Reformation (Martin Luther) strongly opposed Erasmus (...even calling him "[i]the mouth of Satan[/i]"). Why? This was due to Erasmus' stubborn beliefs that anyone who didn't believe in the "divine inspiration" of official extra-Biblical Church tradition or in the adoration and prayers to the saints and Virgin Mary was a "blasphemer!" Yet this same man (Erasmus) is almost adored by those who are willing to overlook his past for the sake of his work with the Greek New Testament. It is all a bit strange to me.

Anyway, I should simply refer back to my previous post regarding the extent of the research that I performed in this matter. Through all of this research, I just didn't find anything that caused me to ultimately conclude that one source was undeniably (and without question) superior to the other -- or just how superior one would be in the first place! So I view the KJV as a good and faithful scholarly version taken from its source and the NIV as a good and faithful academic version taken from its sources. To conclude otherwise, for me, would be less than honest.


_________________
Christopher

 2008/11/1 13:22Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy