Sinaiticus is really important to a multiple versions position. The advocates of multiple versionism rely on a few apparently old manuscripts and this is one of their few. If Sinaiticus is blown apart as a fraud, it really makes them look bad, so they've got a lot banking on its defense. So why wouldn't someone like Bart Ehrman get involved, who is considered the foremost textual critic? I'm guessing that the Pinto documentary doesn't make any difference to him. He doesn't believe in inspiration, let alone what manuscripts should be trusted as authoritative. The reliability of Sinaiticus wouldn't change anything for him. The people who care the most about the authenticity of Sinaiticus, that is, that it is a very old, very trustworth manuscript, are evangelical and fundamentalist "textual critics." Textual criticism became the go-to position for evangelicals around the time that Benjamin Warfield reinvented the meaning of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Now they have their wagon hitched to textual criticism and must defend at almost any cost.
I had never heard of Chris Pinto and his films until this dust-up. It's obvious that he is respected enough to inflame the evangelical textual critics. He comes across as disinterested in anything but the truth. I have noticed that a major attack on their part, if not the primary strategy, is to portray him as a kook, biased out of latent King James Onlyism. This means almost nothing to anyone expect for evangelicals and fundamentalists. If you are KJVO, you are regarded as loony, and Pinto's curiosity as to the origin of Sinaiticus has brought him the label of KJVO. Saying someone is KJVO isn't any kind of evidence or proof. It is the debate equivalent of a sucker punch. It is not arguing in good faith; however, if it sticks, he's done for, because that's what that charge does in evangelicalism and most of fundamentalism. You aren't credible then on any other subject. James White has made his chops, almost a career, with his opposition to the King James Version, spinning that into respect among evangelicals and fundamentalists, who were embarrassed by their brothers loyal to the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.
I haven't read enough of Pinto's theory to comment on its credibility. The theory for which he presents evidence is that a Constantine Simonides forged Sinaiticus, so it isn't an ancient manuscript. I don't think Sinaiticus is credible as a replacement for what believers received for hundreds of years, but Pinto's theory is that it is a forgery, so of recent origin. Pinto is casting doubt (more doubt) on Sinaiticus, which is so necessary for a textual criticism/multiple version position. There is strong attack on Pinto, coming from the usual suspects, attempting to smear him in a manner that I have found the normal technique among these men. I'm not talking about the typical James White gesticulation of tongue snapping, rolling the eyes, and a supremely condescending tone of voice. I guess his supporters like this and think it comes across well. I am talking about the whole "tin foil hat" and "conspiracy theorist" clap trap. Is there a conspiracy against the Words of God? I guess not. Because if you believe in a conspiracy, you're a whack job. The idea of a conspiracy doesn't surprise me, since the backstory of the Bible, part of its overarching narrative, is a conspiracy.
Again, I don't trust Sinaiticus. I don't believe that God's Words get "found" after being lost for hundreds of years. That's not backed by the Bible. It isn't starting with scriptural presuppositions. I don't even think it's evidentialism, because it is based so much on speculation. I already reject Sinaiticus based upon a historical and biblical bibliology, doctrine of the preservation of scripture. I don't need Pinto's material to do that. But I listened to the White-Pinto debate, and White didn't come across credible. He treated Pinto disrespectfully, which unfortunately is normal for White (and other of the critics of multiple versionism---read this as an example, which is regular fare from this guy).
None of the above, however, is what this post is about.
As I hear these men defend Sinaiticus and modern versions at all costs and attack the traditional text of scripture and the King James Version, I always wonder what they are accomplishing with all of this. How does multiple versionism help us? I know that they might say that we are getting closer to the original text of scripture -- that we are not sure, but that we think we're closer based on certain humanly derived principles of textual criticism.
In reading multiple versionists, I sometimes hear thanks given to them for exposing a dangerous doctrine, for saving someone from some felonious road of deceit. They never say what is the danger or what the deceit is. In making those types of judgements, I go to scripture to see what is error, what is true, and what is false. I would except the deceit to contradict the Bible and the truth to agree with it. If the Bible teaches it, someone isn't being protected from something good by not believing what the Bible says. As I see, this multiple versionists are protecting themselves.
When the multiple version apologists are finished, what do they leave us with? Here's their legacy.
1. They leave men with the wrong source of scriptural bibliology.
The textual critic, multiple versionist has never started with the Bible. He didn't go to history to find the historical, biblical position on the preservation of scripture. He didn't and doesn't develop a biblical position before he starts in with his textual criticism. He is not a man of faith, in other words, because faith always starts with what God says. You know you will be wrong when you don't start with the Bible to come to your position. You will read zero development of theology as a basis of the multiple version point of view. Nothing.
The last issue of the Biblical Evangelist republished an article by Douglas Kutilek on Psalm 12, concerning the doctrine of preservation. A very, very long article was intended to establish that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of the poor and needy and not the Words of God. So here is Kutilek attempting to "liberate" the Bible from teaching on the perfect preservation of scripture, and what does that leave us with? We are to depend on a handful of scientific gurus to reveal what God's Words are. Kutilek buttresses his point on gender discordance, and in so doing, is dishonest in not revealing the purposeful gender discordance that is found in pronouns that refer to the Word of God. There are multiple clear examples of this in the Bible, and, therefore, taught in Hebrew grammar and syntax. I and many others have communicated to Kutilek on this, but then he would have to admit that error, so he continues to propagate the misrepresentation. He says that "them" in Psalm 12:6-7 must refer back to poor and needy based upon gender agreement. Again, that's not true. I'm not saying that the passage doesn't teach the preservation of the poor of needy, but that the plain reading, and why many Christians have read it this way, is the preservation of God's Words.
2. They leave men with doubt about the Words of God.
Men don't think they can know what the Words of Scripture are. This is the byproduct of the work of textual critics and multiple versionists. If you can't know what the Words are, then you can work from there on all the other things you couldn't possibly know.
3. They leave men without reliable authority for belief and practice.
They may say sole scriptura, but they believe and practice something different. Sole scriptura relies on the Bible alone for doctrine. The multiple versionist relies exclusively on so-called science for his position. He does not trust God would do what God said He would do. He staggers in unbelief. If men cannot know what the Words are, then how can they know what the doctrine is or its application? Men are left without reliable authority.
4. They leave men with an apology for atheism and agnosticism.
Bart Ehrman is a favorite for atheists and agnostics. When the authority is shifted to science and textual criticism, then we are now at the mercy of that practice. The atheist and agnostic uses the material of the multiple versionist against Christianity.
5. They leave men without a history of the doctrine of preservation of scripture.
For all the teaching in historic theology, this history is dismissed or ignored. The multiple versionists don't talk about how they reject historical doctrine. They are silent on this. They don't want people thinking about it. They're big on history when it supports them, but they are silent here when it eliminates their position, revealing it to be of entirely recent origin. Multiple versionism is a new doctrine. It doesn't have a history in churches.
Much more could be said on this, and even other bad things we are left with, but the mulitple versionists don't leave Christianity or any of us professing Christians with anything good. It's all bad. How is believing that God preserved all His Words in the language in which they were written a danger? Isn't the danger in the doubt? In the uncertainty? Not being sure what the Words are? Isn't the danger in leaving a historic and biblical position? If the King James Version has all the doctrines and is an overall good translation, what they themselves say, then why not leave it alone? Why pursue it like it is a very strange and unorthodox teaching? Muliple version men don't leave us with much good, if any at all.
Again, I don't trust Sinaiticus. I don't believe that God's Words get "found" after being lost for hundreds of years. That's not backed by the Bible. It isn't starting with scriptural presuppositions. I don't even think it's evidentialism, because it is based so much on speculation. I already reject Sinaiticus based upon a historical and biblical bibliology, doctrine of the preservation of scripture. I don't need Pinto's material to do that. But I listened to the White-Pinto debate, and White didn't come across credible. He treated Pinto disrespectfully, which unfortunately is normal for White (and other of the critics of multiple versionism---read this as an example, which is regular fare from this guy).
None of the above, however, is what this post is about.
As I hear these men defend Sinaiticus and modern versions at all costs and attack the traditional text of scripture and the King James Version, I always wonder what they are accomplishing with all of this. How does multiple versionism help us? I know that they might say that we are getting closer to the original text of scripture -- that we are not sure, but that we think we're closer based on certain humanly derived principles of textual criticism.
In reading multiple versionists, I sometimes hear thanks given to them for exposing a dangerous doctrine, for saving someone from some felonious road of deceit. They never say what is the danger or what the deceit is. In making those types of judgements, I go to scripture to see what is error, what is true, and what is false. I would except the deceit to contradict the Bible and the truth to agree with it. If the Bible teaches it, someone isn't being protected from something good by not believing what the Bible says. As I see, this multiple versionists are protecting themselves.
When the multiple version apologists are finished, what do they leave us with? Here's their legacy.
1. They leave men with the wrong source of scriptural bibliology.
The textual critic, multiple versionist has never started with the Bible. He didn't go to history to find the historical, biblical position on the preservation of scripture. He didn't and doesn't develop a biblical position before he starts in with his textual criticism. He is not a man of faith, in other words, because faith always starts with what God says. You know you will be wrong when you don't start with the Bible to come to your position. You will read zero development of theology as a basis of the multiple version point of view. Nothing.
The last issue of the Biblical Evangelist republished an article by Douglas Kutilek on Psalm 12, concerning the doctrine of preservation. A very, very long article was intended to establish that Psalm 12 teaches the preservation of the poor and needy and not the Words of God. So here is Kutilek attempting to "liberate" the Bible from teaching on the perfect preservation of scripture, and what does that leave us with? We are to depend on a handful of scientific gurus to reveal what God's Words are. Kutilek buttresses his point on gender discordance, and in so doing, is dishonest in not revealing the purposeful gender discordance that is found in pronouns that refer to the Word of God. There are multiple clear examples of this in the Bible, and, therefore, taught in Hebrew grammar and syntax. I and many others have communicated to Kutilek on this, but then he would have to admit that error, so he continues to propagate the misrepresentation. He says that "them" in Psalm 12:6-7 must refer back to poor and needy based upon gender agreement. Again, that's not true. I'm not saying that the passage doesn't teach the preservation of the poor of needy, but that the plain reading, and why many Christians have read it this way, is the preservation of God's Words.
2. They leave men with doubt about the Words of God.
Men don't think they can know what the Words of Scripture are. This is the byproduct of the work of textual critics and multiple versionists. If you can't know what the Words are, then you can work from there on all the other things you couldn't possibly know.
3. They leave men without reliable authority for belief and practice.
They may say sole scriptura, but they believe and practice something different. Sole scriptura relies on the Bible alone for doctrine. The multiple versionist relies exclusively on so-called science for his position. He does not trust God would do what God said He would do. He staggers in unbelief. If men cannot know what the Words are, then how can they know what the doctrine is or its application? Men are left without reliable authority.
4. They leave men with an apology for atheism and agnosticism.
Bart Ehrman is a favorite for atheists and agnostics. When the authority is shifted to science and textual criticism, then we are now at the mercy of that practice. The atheist and agnostic uses the material of the multiple versionist against Christianity.
5. They leave men without a history of the doctrine of preservation of scripture.
For all the teaching in historic theology, this history is dismissed or ignored. The multiple versionists don't talk about how they reject historical doctrine. They are silent on this. They don't want people thinking about it. They're big on history when it supports them, but they are silent here when it eliminates their position, revealing it to be of entirely recent origin. Multiple versionism is a new doctrine. It doesn't have a history in churches.
Much more could be said on this, and even other bad things we are left with, but the mulitple versionists don't leave Christianity or any of us professing Christians with anything good. It's all bad. How is believing that God preserved all His Words in the language in which they were written a danger? Isn't the danger in the doubt? In the uncertainty? Not being sure what the Words are? Isn't the danger in leaving a historic and biblical position? If the King James Version has all the doctrines and is an overall good translation, what they themselves say, then why not leave it alone? Why pursue it like it is a very strange and unorthodox teaching? Muliple version men don't leave us with much good, if any at all.
34 comments:
Kent,
I have one main question for you regarding this topic. But before I ask, let me say this. I have only ever used the KJV for teaching and preaching. I have studied the original languages. I agree with and support the Hebrew and Greek Texts behind the KJV. I understand how canon was determined. I believe modern translations have alot of problems based on their text that they rely upon. I believe God's Word is preserved. One final question, that I just cannot make the leap to, is that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English. How does one make that step?
Curious...
Thanks,
Ken
Hi Ken,
Thanks. I don't disagree with what you've written. I don't equate the KJV with preservation, except that its acceptance is the acceptance of the traditional text of scripture. It's an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text. That bothers some KJV supporters, but it is a position that I can defend. God preserved what was written. He didn't write it in English.
Kent,
Ok, that helps. I understand what you thoughts are completely. Thanks for helping clarify my thoughts.
Ken
Ken wrote:
" One final question, that I just cannot make the leap to, is that the KJV is the preserved Word of God in English. How does one make that step?"
1> The just shall live by faith.
2> ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Therefore, what are you preaching and teaching, uninspired scripture?
Why would you do that?
A faithful man would only preach scripture.
Kent wrote;
"God preserved what was written. He didn't write it in English."
God did not write it in any language. The only thing that I know he wrote:
1> The 10 commandments.
2> Possibly, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN
"It's an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text."
Is the KJV a PERFECTLY accurate translation, in your belief?
I apologize if that sounds redundant or like semantics. I just want to fully understand where you're coming from. The reason I am asking, is because if you do not trust that God led them to have it perfectly translated, then you can only assert that the "originals" were alone perfect, and since they don't exist anymore, then your view of what is "perfectly accurate" and "not perfectly accurate", becomes your final authority even above the Word of God.
Just checking to see where you're at :)
Within His Word,
Before I answer your question, which I don't mind answering, you seem to be saying that God didn't preserve His Word. You say we don't have the originals any more. I agree that we don't have the original parchment, but I don't agree that we don't know what the original words are. I'm asking you, "Did God preserve all of the Words that He inspired?"
Ah, fair enough. Let me be more clear. God did preserve all of the Words that He inspired. All of the Words that He inspired are found in the KJV, for example, since the KJV is a perfect translation without any error. So the originals exist on my living room table KJV. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
I'm sorry, Within His Word, but I've got to follow that up, and then I'll answer your question. Do you believe the original manuscripts were English? Did God give the Bible through the prophets and the apostles in English? Or was it Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? And if you believe the latter, did He preserve what He gave?
The original manuscripts were not English of course. They were Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic. And yes, the Lord preserved what He gave, through the translation process. And I know that the translation process into the KJV was/is perfect. Perfectly translated, without even one error.
So, now might you answer my question? :)
Within His Word,
Your answer seems to contradict itself. You say that the originals were not English, but God didn't preserve them in the language they were written. How do you know that? How do you know that God didn't preserve the originals in the language they were written? Why do you believe that way? That doesn't fit a scriptural presupposition or the historic position on the doctrine of preservation.
To answer your question. It really depends on what you mean by perfect. When I say "perfect preservation" I mean the exact words and letters. I know that we can't believe that is the definition of "perfect" with the KJV because the words changed between 1611 and 1769. The most dedicated KJV person, and I am KJV, knows that spellings and words changed between 1611 and 1769, but that doesn't bother him. I can't view that as "perfect" like I do inspiration, which goes to the jot and the tittle. Do you understand? That's why your view doesn't work either. If the KJV was perfect in 1611, in the sense of inspired originals, then it couldn't be changed. Do you use the 1769 edition of the KJV that doesn't have "s" that look like "f"? So I think we have to explain what we mean by perfect.
Kent, here is your problem: Where are you getting your proof for this "1611 vs. 1769" thing? Were you alive during these dates to verify the things that are asserted about them? No. So then, did you get that information/conflict from a book/historian somewhere? Yes, you did. If you got it from a book/historian, then that book/historian is the possessor of your faith, rather than the Word of God where is the promise of perfect preservation.
And that is the issue. I can't alleviate your fears of the supposed so-called "contradictions" in my position. To me, there is no contradiction. The Lord wrote the Bible in Hebrew/Greek, then gave perfect translation to my KJV here in front of me.
I don't have to answer the cries of those that say, "How dare you? Prove what you are saying, why you believe that!"
I don't owe them anything. I stand alone, me and Jesus, and He has made it clear to me that He promised a perfect Book, and I have it. I don't have to answer the claims of supposed so-called "history".
If that makes me "unscholarly", "ignorant", or "boring", so be it.
Within His Word,
I'm not stating a position of "scholarship." This is the position proven by the KJV. Read the KJV and see what it teaches about preservation. You are denying it. I don't know who you are, so this can't be personal (I have no clue).
We can look at the 1611 -- it's in print, as is the 1769. They are different. The 1611 has been reprinted. You don't have to do scholarship. For instance, "spirit" isn't capitalize in 1611, "speak" is "speake" and "charity" is "charitie."
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/originalscans.php?book=1+Corinthians&chapter=12&verse=
You can look at it yourself online. That isn't scholarship.
Does perfect preservation include letters? Please answer.
Again, what the KJV teaches about preservation, is written by a man. I don't care what the man said, even in the KJV notes. I only care what the Lord said. And I don't care about the claim of which came from 1611 and which came from 1769. If it is undeniable proof that each is exactly as the date claims state, then that still doesn't give me any problem at all. God's promise cannot be broken.
A change in spelling and meaning of words, doesn't change perfect preservation. If the ye old English society wants to spell a word differently over time, I'm fine with that. It's still the same word. Different spelling doesn't change perfect preservation. Spelling it "honor" or "honour" is still honor and it is still a perfect preservation. This isn't a problem for me or for God's unbreakable promises.
The word "gay" appears in James, that the rich man comes in the church with "gay" clothing. I have the God-given common sense, as you of course do too, to know that he's not talking about a flamboyant guy from the Castro district. The word "gay" means something different to our ear, than it meant to theirs. But I know what it meant to their ear, so I know what God said. Perfect preservation stands. The dictionary still defines "gay" as enriched and jolly well-off, which is what James meant. James there didn't mean "homosexual" as one of the definition options.
So all of this is not a problem for me. Even the 1611 vs. 1769 thing just sounds like a road to nowhere that wants to try and convince me that I don't have a perfect Bible. But I do have a perfect Bible. It's in my living room. That perfect Bible won't ever mesh with the criticism of the world. It's not designed to. The world is terrified of a perfect Bible, which is why they want to try to convince you that you don't have one.
Within His Word,
But you don't believe in perfection like the Bible, the KJV, describes it. In a perfect Bible, the letters don't change. Is it possible you are just stubbornly resisting that? I don't get your position. It doesn't have a theological or historical basis.
How could you believe that what the KJV teaches is written by a man and yet you believe the KJV is the Bible? I really don't get what you are talking about.
Your definition of perfection is different than my definition.
The Lord has preserved His Word, it is a promise. Because He added different languages to the world back in babel days, then His Word needs to be translated into the languages. He knows this. If we needed to get His Word only in Hebrew/Greek to have it perfect, well, He would have told us that. But He didn't tell us that.
Sort of like how islam requires "true" reading of the Quran to only be in Arabic, and if you don't read it in Arabic, then it's not actually "perfect", according to islamic doctrine. No offense, but you seem to be falling into that odd position.
Perfection to me is, that the Lord preserved His Word through the nuances of the different languages (most of which don't have "jots and tittles" in the Hebrew sense, which even Greek doesn't have in that sense). Even individual languages change over time and from country to country that even use the same language. Australian English is a bit different than American English.
But perfection to you seems to be coming to the conclusion, bottom line, that the KJV can't offer us a perfect Bible in the way that I'm defining perfect.
Please pardon me for saying this, and I don't mean it as a personal attack, but you have kind of an obsessive-compulsive definition of perfection. I understand because I used to think that way.
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
When I first became a believer, that verse almost killed my faith. I thought, but Jesus did in secret say tons of stuff, that they never could have heard.
So Jesus lied.
But of course the Holy Spirit pointed out to me, what Jesus meant, was that pertaining to the conversation they were having about His being the Christ, in secret He said nothing, but openly said it in the earshot of all.
My point is, I'm not sure what conclusion you're trying to draw me to. Do you want to convince me that the KJV is "perfect" but not perfect, depending on how we define the word?
You'll never convince me of that. The KJV is the perfect Word of God every bit as much as the Hebrew/Greek original parchment. I'm not saying the KJV was handed down separate. I'm saying it is a perfect translation, thus, it is the perfect Word of God.
The changes in spelling of words has no effect on its perfection.
For me and my belief in God's promise on this.
Within His Word,
I don't understand you John 18 argument. Caiaphas and Annas did a secret trial of Jesus, while everything that He taught his disciples was 100% public. He had not secret agenda or secret message. He taught it openly because He wasn't ashamed of it, like they were of what they were doing with Jesus.
The reason Jesus said jots and tittles in Mt 5 is because He was referring to the law, which was Hebrew. There was no Greek NT. He didn't say that God would preserve a translation of the OT. He said God would preserve the OT, down to the very letter. Do you believe that? It doesn't sound like it. You redefine perfection like Dan Wallace redefines perfection. It isn't a defensible position and I would encourage everyone to reject it. It isn't scriptural. And this can't be personal, because I don't know who you are. I don't know where this English preservation view comes from, but I haven't heard anyone give me a biblical basis for it. I believe in translations. Jesus translated the Hebrew into Greek. But that doesn't mean that I equate a translation with what God gave us.
As you said, you aren't going to agree, which is too bad, because your position isn't tenable, defensible. It isn't a faith position. It's a faithless position, because it rejects the preservation of the Words God gave.
I don't have any idea who Dan Wallace is. And just because you call a position "indefensible", doesn't mean anything. That is just your belief.
I started this by telling you that I don't need to prove anything to anyone. The Word of God brings faith (Romans 10:17), not these roundabout debates. No unbeliever will read all of this and be convinced of anything.
And you answered my question, which is what I was seeking in the first place. You don't have a perfect Bible. You have said it, since you, personally in what is just your opinion, can't equate any translation with the originals (and since the originals are gone), then you don't have a 100% perfect Bible at all.
But I do :)
And since you don't have a perfect Bible, then there's no point in debating anything about it. It might be wrong, after all, since it is not perfect.
But as I said, I have a perfect Bible, so I don't have this problem.
Within His Word,
Let's get this completely straight. We do have the originals, not the parchment, but the Words -- which you don't believe in. And we possess those. That is preservation. The KJV you use is different than 1611. The original language text I use is no different than the originals. They are not the same physical materials, but the Words and letters are the same. I wrote this before. That is perfection. You chose above simply to misrepresent that, and I would appreciate an admission of that.
When you say perfect, you don't mean "the same Words that God gave." You don't. So it's correct we have a different understanding of perfection, which is why I asked.
You say you have a Bible that is as perfect as the original parchments of Old and New Testaments. I'm satisfied with that. That is all I wanted to hear. I tire of Christians that make statements like, "The Bible is only perfect in the originals, but what we have is very good". That's garbage, in my opinion.
I am very thick at times, and so I didn't ever catch that you were claiming that a perfect Bible was in existence. So I was not trying to misrepresent you. I have learned through personal experience, and through teaching others, that saying things plainly is great gain, and I will sometimes miss a person's point if they don't just say it plainly enough.
If your issue is spelling differences from 1611 to 1769, that might be a dealbreaker concerning perfection for you, but it isn't for me. I consider it a fulfillment of God's promise even if the spelling is different. Just like from language to language, the Name of Jesus is spelled different ways. That's not an error. That's a language nuance.
Within His Word:
You are absolutely correct, and just as I, have the perfect, inerrant, infallible, Holy King James Bible without error.
I do not need history to tell me that, since it was the very words of God, "ALL scripture IS given by inspiration..." that convinced me IN ENGLISH, since that is what was preached and believed by faith that salvation came according to "repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ". Therefore, if I am reading scripture, it IS inspired, and the Holy King James Bible IS inspired including every "jot and tittle".
Kent, on the other hand, hangs his hat on Matthew 5:18 which we have jot and tittles in English, and though spelling did change, that verse is still fulfilled, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". How do you know that? Because those that believed the scriptures in 1611 believe them today, just as they are written, every jot and tittle. The Lord God has no problem with languages as well as "jot or tittles" of those languages. He can "change their appearance" (Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me. VS Thou shalt have no other Gods before me) and at the end, the words with its jot and tittles written, in the inspired English text, "shall in no wise pass from the law".
George wrote: "I do not need history to tell me that, since it was the very words of God"
That's where I'm at. I don't make any appeal to so-called "history" in anything, because there's always someone that has a different "history", and so what's the point? If you talk to the vatican, their "history" is all lies, but, their people stand on it.
Sort of like my Russian friend that grew up right around the fall of the Soviet Union. In school, they had "history" textbooks used in classes under the Soviet regime, that in school a year later after the Soviet Union fell, those "history" books were all burned and replaced with the new version of history that was taught from that point on. Nothing matched up from the old books to the new books.
So much for "history".
The only Book I can trust, is the Bible. :)
Alright,
I'll give it one more shot. The "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 talks about the Words written. Those were Hebrew and Greek. Within His Word, did you know that George doesn't believe the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, or else doesn't know? You are joining him in that position? If 2 Tim 3:15-16 implies preservation, it implies the Words that God gave, which were Hebrew and Greek.
And then Matthew 5:17-18, jots and tittles, are Hebrew vowels and consonants. The "jot" is the smallest vowel, the yodh. This is not a historic argument. I believe a historic argument is important, but it starts with scripture. Matthew 5:17-18 is not referring to the preservation of English, but Hebrew letters. You are denying that position to take an English position, hence, it is scripturally indefensible. Letters and words are preserved. If you don't use the 1611, and the very first 1611 edition, then you are not following a view of preservation of letters and words. And even with that, you can't be right, because Christ promised the preservation of jots and tittles, not English words and letters.
By the way, no one argues that the English hasn't been preserved. It's pretty easy to get your hands on copies of all the old English Bibles, even the originals. But that is not a biblical argument for perfection. Your argument is a pragmatic one, not a scriptural one.
I will give it one more shot...
No, the IS in ENGLISH scripture means IS in English and not Greek! It does not say...
1> All scripture is given by inspiration "in Greek and Hebrew" and is profitable...
OR
2> All scripture is given by inspiration "in the original languages" and is profitable...
That, Kent, is what you imply so that you can have "your history" match your understanding of a PAST preservation.
I have the Holy Ghost and it is the God of the "I AM", the present, for the Pharisees had the same issue you are having, they keep thinking about the dead past (Mark 12:13-27)! I have the Holy King James Bible, inspired living words of the present, not some Greek and Hebrew texts that are from the past.
This position is clearly defensible from the present English scriptures, since they are alive, sealed by the Holy Ghost through the common faith of born-again, sons of God that "received the word of God which ye heard of us [those who preached truth], ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe".
Mark 12:[27] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Consider that carefully.
Kent wrote: "The "is" in 2 Tim 3:16 talks about the Words written. Those were Hebrew and Greek."
I don't believe that is the point of that Scripture. The "is", is referring to the message that was originally given in Hebrew and Greek and is now in English and other languages. The message is the issue.
Kent wrote: "Matthew 5:17-18 is not referring to the preservation of English, but Hebrew letters."
But really in the context of the passage, it is a figure of speech being used by Jesus to make a point. He brought up the jots and tittles to a Pharisaical Jewish audience that thought it was righteous by works of the law. Jesus wasn't trying to make the point you are, I don't believe. I believe Jesus was using a figure of speech to drive home to them, that they are not righteous by the law.
Within His Word,
So you are saying that a jot and tittle will pass from the law before it was fulfilled?
And you are saying that when Paul said "is" that English was a language, or even that the English people existed?
Help me out here.
The Word of the Lord is eternal. In every language that it is translated into, it is the Word of the Lord.
Does God speak Hebrew and Greek, in eternity before He created anything? It seems like that's where you're going. I can't verify His using those two languages in that way before He created all things.
His perfect message is the point, which message was first given to us in Hebrew and Greek and later translated into the languages.
OK, again, within His Word,
Let me get this right. The actual words don't matter, just the ideas or concepts? When God inspired His Words, moved on human authors by the Holy Spirit, the actual Words didn't and don't matter? Do you believe in verbal plenary inspiration?
Do you recognize that an inspired message idea, conceptual inspiration, is new-orthodox?
This is what happens when we're loosey-goosey with what the Bible actually says.
The actual words do matter, and we have the actual words in Hebrew, Greek, English, and tons of other languages.
I'm not going to fall into the trap of a spelling difference being somehow a "false" Word of God.
The actual words matter, but the changing spelling of a language, isn't going to delete His promise of preservation.
I'm not going to keep talking about it Within His Word, but a biblical position can be defended with scripture. I couldn't defend yours if I took it, and I would be under conviction for taking it. The position that honors God, the one of faith, is the one that you get from the Bible. You are left with conceptual inspiration and preservation. It's neo-orthodox.
Kent,
Let us assume that your understanding of inspiration is correct and that the TR text (Stephanos 1550?) is the inspired Greek text.
On example will suffice:
In Acts 12:4, it says "πασχα" in the Stephanos 1550 which is translated "Easter" here, yet every other instance (28 others) it is translated "passover".
Can you explain that?
George,
The King James Translators translated (emphasis on "translated" not inspired) the KJV according to context. A greek word doesn't have just one meaning, very much like the English word "coversation". It could mean two or more people talking about something or it could mean your life such as in 1Peter 1:15.
The King James Translators are not the "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" That would go to the Hebrew speaking prophets who were used by God to write scripture in Hebrew, which is the same language God used to promise to preserve His Word.
The same goes for the Greek. God used the Greek language of the time to have the NT written.
What makes the english KJV or the Spanish or the French or any other language the Bible has been written in to differ? It would differ in what "Hebrew and Greek" manuscript it was based on. God's churches uses the KJV because of its accurate "translation" based off the correct Hebrew and Greek. I'm not sure what exactly you believe about the KJV. I know some people who hold that the KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek. It is not superior. That is a false idea and I challenge you to read some good books about this subject. A really good one is "Thou Shalt Keep Them" by Pastor Brandenburg. Let scripture define our beliefs, not the other way around.
Paul Brownfield
Anonymous said:
"The King James Translators translated (emphasis on "translated" not inspired) the KJV according to context"
[gcalvas] Where did you get the idea that a translation cannot be inspired? Can you base that conclusion from the bible or do you take it solely based on history? For example, can you PROVE the original manuscript to the Romans could not have been written in Latin? Can you PROVE that the original manuscript of the book to the Hebrews was not written in Hebrew?
We know Moses wrote the Pentateuch ("And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exodus 24:4))" "And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds" (Acts 7:22). Therefore, how can you PROVE biblically that it was not written in Egyptian?
It is not important what language scripture is written in, but rather is it scripture. For example, Faithful translators, followed by faithful preachers, evangelists, teachers, and pastors ministered the words of God to the world, and began great revival of men coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ through great sacrifice, even unto death. That Holy King James Bible was the words that they used to bring many to Christ, and therefore are INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, just as other language bibles that men have received in the same way, are therefore the very words of God.
You can read more about it here, from Brent Riggs, a missionary to Poland, if interested:
http://www.preachinginpoland.com/defense.htm
God has not stopped being over us. Our God is active. Our sovereign God oversees everything. He uses imperfections and chaos in perfect order.
So do the other translations of the Bible other than the king James have a viable argument that God can save through them and use them for his purpose, as imperfect translations all of them be.
Can they be used of God also? It seems so
God has used imperfect men to deal with translation, this doesn’t mean that the translation is bad as God is still over Things like translations of the Bible.
God is still God over all, this includes all. Everything is under his sovereign hand and he has no problem getting across to us what he wants to get across to us, when and how he wants to get it across to us. God has brought his revelation into translations.
So the king James Bible is a good place to get God’s word from, it is in there!
Also it is promised that the Holy Spirit will be with all believers to guide them in all truth. This is an ongoing work of God.
That way the common believer can read his Bible with knowing that the Holy Spirit will guide him in all truth as God has said in his word
So with the Holy Spirit being over all truth the KJV bible should be a sufficient place to find truth as God is still with us and ever will be over everything.
Oh and about the word “Easter” That bothered me too until I found that it is in italics in the king James version and everything in italics does not belong in the translation but was a side note from one of the translators. This is indicated in the preface of the King James Bible.
God has helped us with translations in english for the common man to actually read the word of God for ourselves
I happen to read the king James Bible and got saved go figure I didn’t have a college degree .
Post a Comment