Three Bibles, and we look at one verse and one word in that verse.
Bible 1 = Bnutl Bible 2 = Bnity Bible 3 = omitted
Are all three an accurate translation?
Obviously not, because Bible 3 omitted it entirely. Does that mean 3 is incorrect? Not necessarily. Bibles 1 & 2 have a different word. Does that mean one of them is wrong and the other right? Not necessarily, they both might be wrong. One thing is for sure, they both cannot be right. And another thing is for sure: all three CANNOT be right.
Now apply these thoughts to the Bible you hold in your hand. It is different from other Bibles, so how is your assurance that you have the word of God?
When I hold a Bible in my hand and speak words from it to sinners, I tell them that THIS is the word of God, nothing doubting.
What Bible? The King James Bible.
But another Bible, like the NIV, was translated partly from the TR and partly from those wretched Westcott & Hort abominable Greek mss called Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I'm talking here of the NT, okay?
Now do these people who higher criticised the Bible hold an NIV and say, "This IS the word of God."?
No they don't, and friends, you need to realise that.
Frank wrote: I agree! The commandment to not love this world is ignored by the unbelievers of this world. So, women and men would simply not want their lives complicated by births and the responsibilities that follow. Be fruitful and multiply has become a choice instead of a command and we are reaping what we are sowing.
Yea and Amen bro, although that is not what I was thinking, regarding the loss of fertility in Norway.
Dr. Tim wrote: I was already under deep conviction when I â€śjust happenedâ€ť to find that tract on the side of the road. Iâ€™m sure glad you â€śjust happenedâ€ť to listen to that tape. And that millions of others â€śjust happenedâ€ť to be in the right place at the right time for the sword of the Spirit to pierce their hearts and the power of God unto salvation to enlighten their eyes. Wonderful grace of Jesus, Greater than all my sin; How shall my tongue describe it, Where shall its praise begin? Taking away my burden, Setting my spirit free; For the wonderful grace of Jesus reaches me.
Lurker wrote: Benjamin, If we can agree that the Protestant Reformation was God's work, what came out of it that never existed before for English speaking people? A vernacular bible free from the dictates of church and state. That work began in 1526 with Tyndale's NT and culminated with the Geneva Bible in 1560 and the TR was the underlying Greek text. Competing Greek texts didn't show up for another 320 years. So the question that needs asked: Did God have to wait until 1881 to begin perfecting the work He started in 1526?
Agree, Lurker. And another question on top of that might be, "Would God ever use corrupted mss to perfect his word, anyway?"
Connor7 wrote: @John, Iâ€™ll get back to you, but I ask that you show some respect and not falsely accuse me.
Okay it's a deal, Connor. But I ask that you show some respect and not falsely accuse me. __________
Connor, if you say there are more than three differences between the Oxford and Cambridge KJV's, please teach me something, and point me to an article which documents this. Thank you.
Dr. Tim wrote: I got saved through reading a tract, John.
Dr Tim, that is a most wonderful thing, and most encouraging for anyone who is thinking of getting out into the world of sin with a pack of tracts in their bag, determined to let the people know that there is a Saviour who is both willing and able to save all that come to him in repentance, believing on him as the Son of God who loved them and died for them.
I got saved through listening to three men give their testimonies (recorded on a quarter inch reel of tape). This was just in time, because I planned to erase all the tape so that I could begin recording my own electronic music, which was why I bought the tape machine (with a box full of tapes) in the first place.
Benjamin wrote: John UK. You sound like someone who doesnâ€™t read or study the other side. Like a classic KJV onlyist you think that â€śwell all the modern translations are wrong and were put together by impostersâ€ť is an argument. Itâ€™s not. Itâ€™s just an admission that you donâ€™t read the other side. You just listen to the tangents of other KJV onlyists. Your world is small, very small. Good luck telling Chinese, Arabic, basically anyone the Gospel. They have to learn English first I guess. You position is incoherent and stubborn this is why these convos never go well.
Benjamin, get my position correct, and we can have an amicable convo. Misrepresent me, and it's all downhill - your fault.
1. You call me a classic KJV-Onlyist. Untrue.
2. You misquote me: â€śwell all the modern translations are wrong and were put together by impostersâ€ť. I never said that. Untrue.
3. You claim I listen to KJV-Onlyists. I most certainly do NOT. Untrue.
4. You imagine that if I evangelised in China or Arabia I would teach them English first and use the KJV to preach to them. Untrue.
5. You say my position is incoherent, and I am stubborn. Untrue.
Thusly your whole post is a pack of lies from start to finish. Devilish.
Connor7 wrote: @j3, which KJV are you referring to? Oxford or Cambridge? Because they differ from each other. Since they differ how do we know which is right?
John UK wrote: Connor, are these the differences you are referring to? http://www.35thavenuebaptist.org/oxford-kjb-or-cambridge-kjb.html Or are you saying that there are substantial differences between the versions? Differences that will actually have an impact.
Connor, this was my first post to you on this subject. What happened to your answer? I haven't seen one. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that although you say they differ, you never gave proof or said what the differences were. Is that an argument? Not at all.
I gave you the opportunity to read the article, which shows three very minor differences, and what do you do? Oh just ignore it and come back with more questions. And when you've stacked up twenty questions on me, you then accuse me of not answering any of your questions.
To which I have to
Now do you want to answer my one simple question? Or shall we call it a night?
Connor, you are on your own with this, because no-one involved with higher criticism will agree with you. So if you are making a case for modern versions, where are you getting your ideas from?
Regarding your first two points.
1. I was under the impression you believed there was a difference between the Oxford and Cambridge KJV's. I gave you a link and asked you if these were the differences mentioned in the article. You never got back to me on that one.
2. Are you really unaware that the KJV translators made use of the Bishop's Bible, and probably others also, as the base model for the KJV? Connor, please do some research on the KJV and how we got such a magnificent Bible. The KJV began with the base and checked out the Hebrew (for the OT) and the Received Text Greek (for the NT). In other words, they did a thorough job of it. Today's "translators" are impostors who I wouldn't give the time of day to.
Now Connor, it is easy for all to see that your gracious introduction and desire for a peaceable debate was nothing of the sort; you actually want a fight. If not, why are you fighting, with all your might?
Can you calm down please and have a peaceable convo?
Your whole post is based on misunderstanding, inconsistent reasoning, a faulty and unsupported framework, unsubstantiated assertions, and a sort of subjective epistemology. Iâ€™m sorry that you fail to recognize (or donâ€™t see) the flaws of your argumentation.
Connor, you do realise that no-one can prove anything about the Bible, don't you? Without the autographs, you have various options.
1. All copies over the centuries were perfect and preserved intact.
The problem with this, is that not all copies are the same.
2. Some copies over the centuries were perfect and preserved intact.
The problem is deciding which copies are perfect and preserved intact. **
3. No copies over the centuries were perfect, even if they were preserved intact.
The problem here is that every Bible will have imperfections, and the words inerrant and inspired become obsolete.
** The Received Text is based around over 5,000 extant mss, and I'm sure a computer buff could enter all the details and come up with a consensus, which would be extremely similar to the King James Bible. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and a few other mss, are not the way to go, especially as they differ so much between them.
Connor7 wrote: @John Uk, the KJV is based on Greek manuscripts. And my question is a question on which KJV translated it correctly, if there are differences, which is right? And which KJV do we say "is the word of God" and by what standard & authority do we decide? That's the question.
I'm done with this thread.
Firstly Connor, it is very odd for you to come out with a whole load, including questions, and then say, "I'm done with this thread."
Anyway, I would say firstly that the KJV used previous English version/s as its base model, and compared the translation with the best available Hebrew and Greek mss.
Secondly, you ask, "Which is right?"
The best person to ask that question is the author. He wrote it, he knows it.
If he won't tell you, you will have to go to - ah, um, er, yea..... - scholars. There, I said it. But then you will have to ask, "Which scholars?"
If, for example you turn to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, you might think you've unearthed some treasure. That is, until you realise he is a Westcott and Hort supporter, and loved the corrupted manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That, of course, influenced his thinking on the NT.
Dr. Tim wrote: Anglicanism is generally corrupt and apostate in these latter days, JUK, but I do believe Ryle was an evangelical in the true sense of the word.
Sorry about that, Doc. I had no space left to comment. Yea and amen, to your entire post. It is tracts like this that I have given out for decades. Alongside chick tracts, which are guaranteed to be read. Superb. Alongside tracts which I wrote and published myself, always with what they called in those days "clipart" to break up the text and make it less intimidating. Yes, there is no telling what a simple tract can do in the heart of a sinner.
Zealous young Christians will need a church of zealousness, not a fast asleep in Zion, snoring monstrosity. Get knowledge, get zealousness, get in touch with God, stay in touch with God, do whatever he says for you to do, be filled with the Holy Ghost, be a shining light in this dark world, be a soldier for Jesus Christ, repent daily, trust God every hour, live by faith, love not your life unto the death, present yourself a living sacrifice, give up your idols, be wholeheartedly committed to the work of God, honour all men, love the brotherhood, love your enemies, build your house on the rock by obeying Jesus, learn to defeat the devil, be an overcomer, get out witnessing, pray for missions, and if God should ever say....
....Whom shall I send? And who shall go for us?
....Here am I, Lord, send me! I delight to do thy will, O my God.
Adriel wrote: Thus those who are called BY GOD, come to church and stay by grace alone.
Thus those who are called BY GOD, are the church and love to be together.