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:


Dear Mike:

I previously sent this email to you. The answer was also addressed in my post. Maybe you did not see my email?


[b]In response to your post about the billions of mankind and the KJV, the answer is that God can use anything to save mankind. That could be a corrupt newer version Bible, like the NIV, He can send His angels, He can appear to them personally in their dreams and witness to them, He can send me or you or anyone out as a missionary. Transworld radio and others are having excellent results by broadcasting God's Word throughout the World right now, with a tremendous response from Arabic Countries. God can use anything to save the Lost.

However, if we are living in American, and have access to the Textus Receptus, the preserved Word of God, why wouldn't we want to read and study that ourselves, instead of a new, corrupt version of the Bible? My post is directed at people in America who are not using the King James Bible.[/b]

As far as the fact that the remaining people groups do not have access to the Authorized Version (AV), that is only because the various Bible Societies are too busy printing corrupt NIV's and other newer versions in foreign languages. What we need today are committed Christians who know the truth and would be willing to take on the task of translating the AV into the "languages of the people groups of the world". It would also be most critical that whoever took on this task did not copyrite their work. Their reward would NOT be a monetary reward, like all of the other "Christians" who supposedly take on this task and make millions of dollars in the process-it increases the price of the Bibles because whoever copyrited them gets a royalty ($$$$) every time one is printed. As true Christians, our reward is waiting for us in heaven!

Bibles should be printed at a cost of $1 to $2 each in order to send them out. But since they are copyrited, they cost $10-$20 each. That is where the travesty is today, it is all about money, filthy lucre. God is not happy with this and those that are responsible for this will have to anwer to HIM, very soon.

Sincerely,

Walter


Quote:

MikeH wrote:
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 13:30
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:
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, preserved by God as He promised us He would thoughout the Bible.



Waltern,

Have you been actually reading the posts by the others? None of us are against the KJV or TR, but we're also not against some of the new versions. It's really kind of scary to see people this hyped enough over this to call others (brothers and sisters in Christ, no less) gnostics, etc.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/1 13:56Profile
MikeH
Member



Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116


 Re:

Waltern wrote

Quote:
I previously sent this email to you. The answer was also addressed in my post. Maybe you did not see my email?

No, don't check PMs very often and had missed that. I apologise, and thank you for making your answer public. Is it fair to summarise your published response by saying that God is saving people throughout the world without the AV (I'm a Brit and like to think we should refer to the KJV by the accepted moniker in the UK which is AV ;-) ), but you would like American's to read the KJV. Oh, and what about other English speaking parts of the world? In my PM to you, I mentioned that there is a significant part of the USA that now only speaks Spanish, so again I assume you are only addressing the English speaking part of America.

It would be helpful if you would attempt to answer my other questions.

1) Who are the CCotPR?

2) If you mean the original reformers, how could they read the AV as it wasn't written?

3) Are there any other language translations that the CCotPR approves such as Luther and Zurich and any others?

I fully agree with you on the cost of bibles and the issue of filthy lucre. But I also think you are being a little harsh on the American publishers. I found, on box or pallet quantities, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and CEV at between $2 to $4 each from the likes of IBS and ABS.

Since you are concerned about the issue of translating the AV into other languages, is the CCotPR currently funding such translations and if so into which languages? Has it done any in the past?

With kind regards

Mike

 2008/11/1 18:17Profile









 Re:

To: Homefree89

Your question to me was:

[b][color=990000]"Waltern, have you been actually reading the posts by the others? None of us are against the KJV or TR, but we're also not against some of the new versions.[/color][/b] It's really kind of scary to see people this hyped enough over this to call others (brothers and sisters in Christ, no less) gnostics, etc.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My respoonse to Homefree89:

Yes, I have actually been reading everyones posts, but we disagree. [b]There is only one Word of God, not two. We only have one Word of God that has been preserved for us through the true Church since the beginning. Just like the true Church at the beginning, when Paul confronted the false doctrine of his day, just like the true Church of 1881 that rejected as fraudulent the work of the "revision committee" and their "new testament", we must be prepared to do the same thing and reject all of the newer versions that have spawned from the 1881 revision-all of the newer versions qualify for rejection.[/b]

Following are some highlights to one chapter of a thorough study of this issue. I will post the entire chapter at another time.


[b]THE ORIGINAL TEXT PRESERVED HISTORICALLY THROUGH THE TRUE CHURCH[/b]

Regarding conflation – as Dean Burgon adeptly pointed out – why, if the Traditional Text were created by 4th-century Antiochian editors whose regular practice had been to conflate (combine) Western and Alexandrian readings, could Westcott and Hort after nearly thirty years of searching throughout the Gospels find only eight supposed instances to offer as proof of their thesis? Why could they find only eight verses out of nearly eight thousand? Only a few more have been offered since by their followers.

[b]THE QUOTES FROM THE "FATHERS"[/b]

The crucial external evidence that Westcott and Hort offered in support of their theory was that there were no Syrian readings in the Fathers' quotes prior to A.D. 350. They maintained that Chrysostom, who died in 407, was the first father to habitually use the Syrian. However, these statements are simply not consistent with the facts. In the first place, Chrysostom did not just give Syrian quotes. Furthermore, according to Edward Miller's exhaustive compilation of the writings of the church "Fathers", Origen (185? - 254?) gave 460 quotes which agree with the readings of the Traditional Text and 491 quotes siding with the "Neologian" text. In view of this, how then could Hort declare that Origen's quotations "exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the Syrian text"?

Miller's study also revealed that Irenaeus, a second century church Father who according to Hort represented the "Western" text, gave 63 quotes from the Syrian (Traditional Text) text with only 41 from the so-called "Neologian" family. It should be noted that when referring to the "Fathers", this author is not endorsing their doctrines but merely recognizing and emphasizing what they accepted and believed to be Scripture at that early date.

Miller further found that prior to Origen, the Traditional Text was quoted two to one over all others of the Fathers' quotes if we omit Justin Martyr, Heraclean, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Why should we omit them? They were carried away with Origen's confusion. Yet even if we include them, Miller's study showed that the ratio still favored the Traditional Text 1.33 to 1. Thus it is seen that Hort lied about the quotes from the Fathers and gave no actual statistics.

[b]Miller, posthumous editor to Burgon, made full use of Burgon's patristic citations with regard to the testimony of the ante-Nicene Fathers. His work covered 86,489 extant citations from seventy-six of these Fathers. Of those who died before 400 A.D., the Traditional Text ("twin brother" and virtually identical to the text of the Textus Receptus) wins out 3 to 2 over all the other variant readings.

Moreover, if we consider only the Greek and Latin Fathers (Syriac not included) who died prior to 400, their quotations support the T.T. in 2,630 instances whereas 1,753 support the "Neologian". Thus Miller found that in the Fathers' citations who died between 100 - 400 A.D., a span of 300 years, not only was the T.T. in existence from the first – it was predominant!

Hort's statement that none of the church Fathers before 350 quoted the T.T. is simply not true. As mentioned, even Origen occasionally cited and adopted purely Syrian readings. For example, Dr. E.F. Hills states that in John 1-14 which is covered by Papyri 66 and 75, fifty-two times the Syrian reading stands alone as to the text and Origen agreed with twenty of them. This may be quickly verified by merely scanning Tischendorf's critical apparatus.

Thus, the oft stated assertion of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Byzantine text is simply untenable. On the contrary, these statistics demonstrate that Origen was not only familiar with the Byzantine text, he frequently adopted its readings in preference to those of the "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts. Hills goes on to report that seven of these same twenty occur in Papyri 66 and/or 75 (circa 200 A.D.).

Although Hort accused the Traditional Text as having late readings, hence it must be a "late text", his own research revealed otherwise. In his "Notes on Select Readings" which appears as an appendix in his Introduction, Hort discussed about 240 instances of variation among the manuscripts of the Gospels. In only about twenty of these was he willing to characterize the Byzantine reading as "late". Thus, by Hort's own admission, only around ten per cent of the Byzantine readings were supposedly late. Scholars today offer even less.

PAPYRI (c.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS[/b]

The papyri (around 200 A.D.), which dates 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, support the Textus Receptus readings. This may come as somewhat of a shock to those familiar with the problem of textual criticism, as most have been informed that the early papyri are listed as Alexandrian or Western. True, nevertheless the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papyri, even though placed in those families, have many renderings which are strictly Syrian – strictly Textus Receptus.

After a thorough study of P46, Gunther Zuntz concluded: "A number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P46". Having several years earlier already acknowledged that with regard to the Byzantine New Testament "Most of its readings existed in the second century", Colwell noted Zuntz's remark and concurred. Many of these readings had been considered to be "late readings", but the papyri testify that they date back at least to the second century!

In his recent book, the late (d.1989) Harry A. Sturz surveyed "all the available papyri" to determine how many papyrus-supported "Byzantine" readings were extant. In deciding which readings were "distinctively Byzantine", Dr. Sturz states that he made a conscious effort to "err on the conservative side" and thus his list is shorter than it could have been. Sturz lists 150 Byzantine readings which, though not supported by the early Alexandrian and Western uncials, are present in the bulk of later manuscripts and by the early papyri. Sturz lists a further 170 additional Byzantine readings which also read differently from the A-B text but are supported by Western manuscripts. These are also supported in the ancient papyri. This support may seem minimal, but nothing can diminish the fact that the total number of papyri citations favor the so-called "late" Byzantine readings against their rivals in the two lists by two to one. Sturz demonstrates papyri support for a total of 839 readings which in varying degrees would be classified as Byzantine.

[b]This forever dismantles Hort's theory that the Byzantine text was created as an official compromise text during the 4th-century by combining readings from earlier text-types.
Hills declared that the Chester Beatty readings vindicate "distinctive Syrian readings" twenty-six times in the Gospels, eight times in the Book of Acts, and thirty-one times in Paul's Epistles. [/b]

Hills goes on to state that Papyrus Bodmer II (Papyri 66) confirms 13% of the so-called "late" Syrian readings (18 out of 138). To properly appreciate this one must consider the fact that only about thirty percent of the New Testament has any papyri support, and much of that thirty percent has only one papyrus. Thus this is seen as a major confirmation to the antiquity of the text of the Traditional Text in direct contradiction to the theory previously outlined in which the Syrian readings were said by Westcott and Hort to be fourth and fifth century. May we not reasonably project that subsequent discoveries of papyri will give similar support to readings now only extant in Byzantine text?

[b]A most telling fact concerning the papyri is that several of them have texts of Revelation (P-47 for example). How does the destructive critic explain the fact that Vaticanus (written c.350) does not include the Book of Revelation whereas the 1611 Authorized Version (written nearly 1260 years later) contains this book? Can one reasonably explain how Erasmus' "late" manuscripts contained an entire book missing in the "pure, neutral Vatican" text? How did Erasmus know that the book of Revelation should be in the canon when the "oldest and best" manuscript did not contain it?

[b]GAIUS, THOUGH LONG DEAD, SPEAKS[/b]

Gaius was an orthodox "Father" writing near the end of the 2nd-century (c.175-200 A.D.). Gaius named four heretics who altered text and had disciples copying them. He charged that they could not deny their guilt because the copies in question were their own handywork and that they were unable to produce the originals from which they had made their copies. As Pickering observed, this would have been a hollow accusation from Gaius if he could not have produced the Originals either! Hence, it follows that the Originals were still available at the end of the second century.

Polycarp (69 - 155 A.D.) was a pupil of John the Apostle. It is very likely that he had originals, at least the ones which John wrote. He also would have had some very near originals of the rest of the New Testament which he would have obtained from his teacher, John. Moreover, Polycarp would have had them at the time of his death in 155 A.D. Thus, around 175 to 200 Gaius must have had access to them also. Since the papyri prove the Syrian readings are at least second century, how could the original Syrian have gained dominance over the other text types (Neutral, Alexandrian, Western) if they had been corrupted when appeal to the autographs could have been made at that date? The whole W-H Theory as well as its modern counterpart is thereby clearly exposed and seen as vacuous and fallacious – "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

The only ancient, historical, authoritative revisions were those which occurred when Constantine commissioned Eusebius to produce fifty Bibles for him to place in the hands of the Bishops of the larger Churches in his realm and that of Jerome for Pope Damasus. Thus the recension spoken of by the text critics was not in the days of Lucian but nearly 150 years earlier when Eusebius (and later, Jerome) chose Origen's work from the library at Caesarea as his text for both Testaments.

[b]ERASMUS VINDICATED[/b]

We are constantly being told that Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus A are the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, hence the most reliable and best; that they are in fact the Bible. The New Greek text which has replaced the Textus Receptus in the minds of the vast majority of the scholars represents the private enterprise of two men, two very religious albeit unregenerate men, Westcott and Hort. [b]These men based their work almost completely on Origen's fifth column for their Old Testament and his edited New Testament. Their New Testament readings are almost exclusively derived from only five manuscripts, principally from only one.[/b]

"B" supplies almost ninety percent of the text for all the new Greek versions upon which the new translations are based. In other words, they use one manuscript to the exclusion of nearly all others! Seven percent is from Sinaiticus A, almost three percent from Alexandrinus A, a portion from Uncial D (which is extremely corrupt), and the small remainder from Codex L and a few other manuscripts.

[b]For the most part, this is as close as the destructive critics have thus far come to "recovering" the original text. Hence, the Scriptures are seen as being in somewhat of a state of "evolution" by those who reject the fact of God's having preserved His Word for its constant availability and use by the body of believers as He indicated He would do.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (II Tim.3:16-17)

Thus the very same fault for which the critics have derided Erasmus so relentlessly over the years – namely, that he only used five manuscripts – is far more true of their own modern rendition of the Greek New Testament. Remember, their charge is not completely justifiable concerning Erasmus for he studied several hundred Greek manuscripts and prepared notes on the variant readings found therein. And yet Westcott and Hort basically used only five, in fact, almost only one manuscript!

Indeed, for the most part the same may be said for their modern eclectic counterparts.[/b]

[b]As Burgon rightly perceived:

"... the whole controversy can be reduced to the narrow issue – does the truth of the text of the Scriptures dwell in the vast multitude of the copies, be they uncials, or cursive – or is it to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a small handful of manuscripts which differ from the great bulk of the witnesses and, strangely, also among them-selves?" [/b]

From: Which Version is the Bible, Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, 1998 (16th edition)

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

HomeFree89 wrote:
Quote:
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, preserved by God as He promised us He would thoughout the Bible.



Waltern,

Have you been actually reading the posts by the others? None of us are against the KJV or TR, but we're also not against some of the new versions. It's really kind of scary to see people this hyped enough over this to call others (brothers and sisters in Christ, no less) gnostics, etc.



 2008/11/2 2:27
Koheleth
Member



Joined: 2005/11/10
Posts: 530
NC

 Re:

Waltern,

I don't think you realize what a psycho journey you are on. You are posting reams and reams of paragraphs, and I am not seeing much focus on Christ. In fact, apart from an emphasis on the Texus Receptus, the only thing you keep saying recently is that you disagree, disagree, disagree with the moderators and others on this forum. I think most people around here are looking for Christ and for revival. Continuing to hammer home a point that takes huge amounts of reading is only distracting people from looking hard and long at Jesus. Since I would like to believe you don't really want to be an agent of disunity among Christians, I would appeal to you, appeal in Jesus' name, not to keep posting without approval from the moderators.

 2008/11/2 6:55Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: KJV for others

Waltern,

Let me repeat this earlier exhortation from Paul West;

Quote:
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



The word that comes to mind is [i]restraint[/i]. We have allowed you to post [i]volumes[/i] on this issue over the course of time and it is no secret your passion and opinion in this whole regard.

To your credit, up until now, had taken notice that there was something other to Waltern after all in response to subjects [i]other[/i] than the great KJV ... controversy/conspiracy/abuse/neglect - however you wish to couch it. But you are reverting to old tactics and are overlooking the fact that once again you are [i]dominating[/i] yet another KJV/discussion with that which has already been pointed out. Let others have a chance here, they can think for themselves - a couple of links to your previous opinions would have sufficed.

Restraint brother, it's a fruit of the Spirit.



Edit: Made a correction to your link on one* of the other pages and as a reminder to others;
Edit 2: * Make that numerous.

([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])


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/11/2 9:05Profile









 Re:

Dear Koholeth:

My concern is that the tribulation is at our door. The Church today is praying for Revivial, but it cannot be found. It is praying for harvest, but the harvest is nothing compared to the 1500-1800's. We are searching for holiness, but all we have is the flesh. We are searching for brokeness, but all we have is pride.

We have one Bible, that has been preserved by God Himself through the true Church. Just like Paul confronted false doctrine, we are to do the same.

How on earth can we have two "preserved by God" Words of God, two Bibles, with two Gospels that do not agree as a mirror image? "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

[b]The problem with the Church today is the Bible that they hold in their hands, that they study and memorize. The word that goes from their heads to their hearts.[/b] We either have the very Word of God, or we have the word of men that have cut and pasted God's Word to their own understanding. The differences between the King James and all of the newer versions has been posted on this website.

Can you see the difference that was posted? Did you look closely and study the tremendous difference between what we are led to believe are the same Gospel by God Almighty, passed down to us from ancient history?

[b]God can use a corrupt Bible to draw the lost to Himself for salvation. However, man needs God's very Word to "work out" their own salvation.[/b]

12. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Philippians 2:12-13

How can we "study to show ourselves approved unto God" when we are not studying God's Preserved Words, passed down through the Bible Believing Church, since the beginning, but instead we are studying the word of God that has been altered by fallen man, and is disagreement with much of God's preserved Word?

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness 17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. (2 Timothy 2:15-20)

[b]That is my take on things. Everything in regards to Revival, Brokeness, Holiness is diminishing within the body of Christ in direct proportion to it's acceptance of the corrupted word, found in all of the newer Bible versions.[/b]

The Bible's we leave behind at the Rapture must be the very Preserved Word of God, promised to us by God Himself, throughout His Word. They must be the King James. We won't need to leave a Greek Lexicon, or Hebrew Lexicon, along with a corrupt NIV. We will not have to leave instructions on what we learned in "Bible College" and of what great importance "textural criticism" is and how to do it. [b]All that is needed is God's very Word.[/b]

Christ told us that we should become as "little children" if we want to get into heaven.

[b]And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

Koheleth wrote:
Waltern,

I don't think you realize what a psycho journey you are on. You are posting reams and reams of paragraphs, and I am not seeing much focus on Christ. In fact, apart from an emphasis on the Texus Receptus, the only thing you keep saying recently is that you disagree, disagree, disagree with the moderators and others on this forum. I think most people around here are looking for Christ and for revival. Continuing to hammer home a point that takes huge amounts of reading is only distracting people from looking hard and long at Jesus. Since I would like to believe you don't really want to be an agent of disunity among Christians, I would appeal to you, appeal in Jesus' name, not to keep posting without approval from the moderators.

 2008/11/2 11:33
repentcanada
Member



Joined: 2005/5/9
Posts: 659


 Re:

What can anyone say to what waltern just wrote?

That is truth, heavy truth.

 2008/11/2 12:42Profile
PaulWest
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
My concern is that the tribulation is at our door.


Quote:
The Bible's we leave behind at the Rapture must be the very Preserved Word of God, promised to us by God Himself, throughout His Word. They must be the King James. We won't need to leave a Greek Lexicon, or Hebrew Lexicon, along with a corrupt NIV.


Brother, you really should bring it down a notch...or two. Your concern over the tribulation and rapture is that the KJV alone be left behind for the world to read? I really wonder how one comes to so radically embrace the position you and others like yourself espouse. I am not being facetious. I really wonder how it begins. What preacher(s) did you listen to, what literature did you read, and I wonder where the initial illumination came from and from whence that first revelation was sparked.

Just to clarify - so it seems I'm not picking on you: I believe the KJV is the best translation yet, and that it has never been surpassed (and probably never will be), but I am not so naive as to deny God's effectual working in other translations as well. At this point the KJVO advocates usually answer with the mundane: "Yeah, so what. God spoke through a donkey..." I had my first encounter with God while reading the TEV in college back in 1990. I was brought to my knees in tears having never even heard of the KJV or the TR.

After I got saved, I read the NIV for a few years...and loved it. Then I ventured out to the NKJV and loved it even more. I heard somewhere that the NASB was supposed to be the most accurate version available, and so I picked up one of those but didn't see the big deal (I really didn't care for its readibility and found it said about the same as my NKJV). I then heard about the AMP version, and got one of those. I thought it was pretty neat - novelty wise - but the excitement wore off eventually. Then I got a Phillip's translation and really liked it, even though I knew it was a paraphrase. Soon after, I discovered Young's translation, which uses the same exact manuscript as the KJV, only more literally and gramatically-correct with the Greek aorist verbs conjugated more closely in their proper English tense. I still have all these versions in my library, along with the Recovery version and a few others I hardly ever read. The version I always return to is the KJV, but I am prudent to read it alongside other versions - my favorite today being the KJV/NLT parallel through which God has enabled me to mine the most precious gems.

We live at such a fantastic time in history where all these special versions are made available to us; some good, others not so good. We have Tyndale's copy and we also have Peterson's paraphrase (The Message) which, incidentally, I think at times scores a direct hit as far as conveying the nucleus of a verse's gist. It is patently absurd to declare any one of these translations or dynamic equivalents "The Preserved Word of God", and disqualify all others by default as corrupt falsities...simply by virture of the fact that they all are (including the KJV) predecessors of other sources. And their manuscripts are predecessors of other manuscripts, and they all have broad, rich family trees with branches that extend deep into a history that God has kept a careful Hand upon. Whether it be a KJV or a NASB, a NLT or a NCV the Word of God is pulsating today just as He promised it always would, till the end of time. I see the Word of God as the One Spiritual Blood-line that runs through different sources named the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the NLT, the AMP, etc. It runs through them all, whether you see and acknowledge it or not. And it gives life to others who read them, whether you choose to see or acknowledge it or not. These vessels may all look a bit different, and perhaps speak a different dialect, but the core DNA of God is there. As far as the manuscripts go, I see them the same way as I see the 4 different-but-same gospels in the New Tesatament, all saying essentially the same thing (word for word in most places), just in different dialects, and in some places seemingly contradictory; where in other places one version remains silent while the other version discloses. It's all okay. The Holy Spirit gave us four unique gospels for a reason, to teach us highminders a profound lesson in acceptance and diversity. God uses both manuscripts mightily, and as far as I can tell, without partiality. Who am I to reject that which God has accepted? I may have my personal preferences, but I will not judge others by the book they read or sway them over to my camp. They are partaking of the same bread and blood I am, though perhaps at a different table-setting.

I choose to take full advantage of the diversity and gain as much as I can from all dialects, tongues and versions...and filter it all down through the Holy Spirit, a spiritual dialysis, and incorporate it into my own walk by the providence of God. I've had no reason to be disappointed by this method yet, and it has saved me from leering off on radical fringes and becoming unreasonably biased.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/11/2 12:51Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Really good post, Bro. Paul!


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/2 13:15Profile





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