As God's Word, the Bible stands as final authority for faith and practice. What it says clashes with the world system and with man's depravity, so it will always be under attack by that system and by men. The more scripture has grown and will grow out of fashion with the culture, the more have denied and will deny its inerrancy. When I hear the term inerrancy, I think "without errors." I wish that was the definition. However, inerrancy itself, as most theologians understand it, does not mean "without errors," but "total truthfulness." Where the Bible speaks in matters of science and history, it is true, something like that. If you are going to believe the Bible to be totally truthful, you have some accounts therein that require faith to accept. They are statements beyond human explanation. If you believe in inerrancy, you accept all of those, as all the others, as totally truthful.
A few weeks ago, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, reaffirmed and stood by the above definition of inerrancy, saying that there was no middle ground. You either believe it all or you don't believe it at all. But why do you believe it all? Some of it doesn't make sense. It clashes with what scientists say and what historians say. For instance, William Lane Craig (the youtube video is now gone, but the transcript is here) says that a vast, vast majority of New Testament scholars would regard Matthew's guard-at-the-tomb story as unhistorical. What authority does the Bible have when we can pick and choose what's true and what's not?
You exercise faith on many, many parts of the Bible. Some of it is beyond human comprehension. When you believe in inerrancy, you take it all as authoritative, even the hard parts, that have not had and may never have scientific or historical backing. Where it speaks, you say it is in fact science and it is as well history, even if you can't prove it with science and history. Maybe you can prove it with science and history and even most of it, but even if you could not, you would still believe it. It is true. It is authoritative. With inerrancy as a presupposition, I see every event, every statement, and every passage as scientific and historic. I think there is proof for it.
If the Bible says the truth about everything, then it also tells the truth about its own preservation. Inerrancy and preservation also dovetail with one another. If God didn't preserve the Bible, then that effects its inerrancy. If it isn't inerrant, then you've got errors anyway, and it can't be trusted. We should not relinquish the safety of inerrancy or perfect preservation. To believe either, we're trusting God. Both are historical positions. Inerrancy is attacked by historical criticism and perfect preservation is attacked by textual criticism. Both are the criticism of so-called science.
If Mohler were to be consistent, he would see the similarity of both inerrancy and perfection preservation. He would see the necessity of both. If the Bible is truthful, then it is perfectly preserved, because it says that it will be. If it isn't preserved, then the Bible isn't truthful, or it isn't inerrant. If God didn't preserve it perfectly, how are we to believe its inerrancy?
We have a safe place not just in inerrancy of scripture, but also in its perfect preservation.
31 comments:
Amen Pastor Brandenberg.
I'm not sure how you get "total truthfulness"out of the Mohler endorsed ESV's Asaph of Matt 1:7&8, or Amos of Matt. 1:10, the church in her house of Col 4:15, or the [crickets] of Mark 15:28, Acts 8:37, or Rom. 16:24.
Blessings
Hi John,
Thanks for the comment. Mohler doesn't think like we do and a point here, since so many do think like him, was to have those like him come further. If what he says is true, why not take real steps of faith here and really believe the Bible. Thanks for pointing those things out though, and I'll try to find the link that's not working.
Kent,
I agree with all that you said, therefore I will ask the direct question,
Is the Holy King James Bible the inerrant and perfectly preserved scripture in English without any regard to Greek, Hebrew or any other manuscripts it came from?
(Quote "Where it speaks, you say it is in fact science and it is as well history, even if you can't prove it with science [i.e., Textual Criticism and history [i.e., original language onlyism].)
George,
The KJV is the inerrant and preserved word of God because it is an accurate translation of the inerrant and preserved Greek and Hebrew words.
If a new translation is to be written for another language, it should be translated from the same original language texts that underpin the KJV - not translated from the KJV English into the other language. Would you agree with this? Genuinely interested in your answer because I think it will help clarify where we are standing here.
Lastly, have you ever heard of Peter Ruckman's double inspiration doctrine regarding the KJV?
George,
Yes to your only question. Based on the above definition of inerrancy, the King James is inerrant. And the King James has been perfectly preserved. However, the doctrine of preservation relates to the original languages because that's why God inspired. So do I believe the King James is inspired? Yes, because there is life in the Words, like Jon and Thomas have talked about here.
By the way, if I use the King James Version, which I do, and read more than the original languages, then I can't be original language only.
Brethren,
I know you all mean well, but just like so many that have been "instructed in the way of Egypt (higher criticism)" rather than by the scriptures themselves, you all fall into the trap of the original languages when there is NO PROOF as to languages the 66 books were written in! There are those textual critics who consider the LXX inspired (Greek translation of OT), while more than 5000 Greek manuscripts and over 20 Masorah manuscripts exist including over 30 Greek texts that add to the confusion. The question is obvious to any thinking man who has considered the >200 English translations and based upon the scriptural evidence of who "the author of confusion" is... We still do not have it right??
You all argue over the Greek and Hebrew texts much in the same way that has caused the arguments and strife over the Holy King James Bible and the 200+ English translations.
I just believe the scriptures without ANY argument to what is written. The Holy King James Bible lines up with the biblical truth found within its pages that it very words are inspired, inerrant and therefore the very word of God. No need to prove anything anymore by running to various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
As Pilate wrote the final epithet over Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost has confirmed the very scriptures in English through the consensus of born-again, sons of God...
"What I have written I have written" (John 19:22).
George,
You've told a lie here. We don't argue about the original languages like textual critics. We argue completely different. We start with biblical presuppositions (unlike you, by the way -- you don't take your position from the King James Version, let alone the Hebrew and Greek editions), and they do not. They start with "manuscript evidence" and let that lead them to their position. We start with what the Bible promises and that is what guides us to our position. In other words, we get our position by faith. You have the opportunity now to retract that lie. If you don't, then I will delete your comment. You are free to make comments, but you don't get to tell lies here without any repercussions.
You don't understand what the King James Version says about the preservation of scripture. You deny preservation, because Pilate didn't speak in English. His Words were not recorded in the original manuscripts in the English. Copies of those manuscripts were not made in English.
Another question, where a version of the LXX was accurately translated from the Hebrew, was the LXX inspired? You are saying it isn't inspired, but the KJV is. Do you believe translations into other languages of the Bible are not inspired?
1> Ok, so you get your position by faith, but you live by sight. You keep talking about preservation and inerrancy, commit such to the King James Bible (by faith), yet you keep running back to the Greek and Hebrew to prove what?? Since the King James Bible is inspired, based on faith that it was translated by other inspired texts, what more is there to prove EXCEPT TO BELIEVE IT BY FAITH??
Scripture is self-authenticating according to 2 Peter 1:18-20, Psalms 12:6-7/138:2/119,etc and when found it is to be believed exactly the same way that one comes to faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:17). The bible promises IN ENGLISH that "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will make you free". If you have the faith that you say you have, Why must you go elsewhere to PROVE that which is written?
I studied manuscript evidence, text types and all the historical "evidence" just to prove to others who had "little faith" that the Holy King James Bible has the evidence of authenticity, but NONE of it is necessary to understand ANYTHING that pertaineth to life and godliness.
You have faith, but you certainly do not have the faith I and many others have that EVERY WORD in that Holy King James Bible is pure without regard or necessity to run to the Greek, Hebrew, Latin or any other language to understand that which is written. The King James Bible never fails to correct anyone that tries to correct it.
[Kent} Another question, where a version of the LXX was accurately translated from the Hebrew, was the LXX inspired?
gcalvas Who says that the Hebrew text that it came from was inspired? I personally do not believe that the evidence used to prove a BC Greek translation of the Hebrew is valid. According to other sources, it is the 6th column of the Hexapla. So, are you then saying that in the NT where Jesus Christ opened the scriptures, he opened a Greek Septuagint?
According to your belief, you have "little faith" or at least a lack of faith, for your faith only takes you so far having many times in your writings "run to the Greek" to prove that the Holy King James Bible was not sufficient to prove a matter, such as "IF" in Colossians 1:23. My faith proved what was written without going anywhere except to the text to show what the conditional IF statement meant.
At least I have examined your faith based on my faith and the faith of many others. When it comes to BELIEVING that the Holy King James Bible is self-authenticating through the ministry of the Holy Ghost of saved, born-again believers (consensus according to Jude 1:3) in the last 400 years, I find your faith is lacking in regard to the scriptures.
[Kent} Do you believe translations into other languages of the Bible are not inspired?
gcalvas Yes, for I believe that there are inspired Bibles in other languages such as English, but it would be based on the same evidence of faith as the English scriptures are believed.
Kent,
By the way, what lie? The context seems to suggest that you are implying that I spoke of your faith in the bible?
If so, my post and what I wrote had nothing to actually do with faith, but it could be implied.
I gave an answer to that on a post entered today previous to this one to correct your implications that I lied about anything. To lie is to make false statements INTENTIONALY. I did nothing of the kind to my knowledge, therefore you are obligated to be specific in your accusations against me. I will correct any error if it is in error, or I will stand on what I have written.
You want to delete the post because it "troubles you", that is your prerogative, but to do it on false pretenses (calling it a lie) or misunderstandings (not being clear of what I lied about) is not right as brothers in Christ.
George,
The lie, which I refuted in my comment, was: "You all argue over the Greek and Hebrew texts much in the same way that has caused the arguments and strife over the Holy King James Bible and the 200+ English translations." We don't argue much in the same way. It is a lie when you are not careful with the truth. It doesn't have to be just intentional, when you are careless, and you are either intentional or careless.
I didn't call it a "lie" when you said that we don't know what the original languages are. That isn't true, but I don't call it a lie, because I would call it "false." However, when you make a false accusation against us personally, I believe it is a lie.
Let me give you two examples to work with from the Hebrew before I get to the Greek of the New Testament. Hebrew is the original language. Adam spoke Hebrew. How do we know this? When you read Adam's first recorded statement in Genesis 2:23, Adam made a word pun that you catch only in the Hebrew language. It is a pun not found in any other ancient version. He punned on the name man (ish) with the name of the woman (ishshah, "from the man"). There are several others of these, but a simple point is that the poetic rhythm of Hebrew poetry does not translate into the English. It is poetry in the Psalms, and there is rhythm there, which partly makes it poetry. Psalm 119 is also a Hebrew acrostic. The first 8 lines of Psalm 119 begin with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet aleph.
There is much, much more than this, and you're just denying what is actually found in the text of scripture that magnifies God and the text of scripture, in order to keep your odd English edition position. You say that the 1611 and 1769 are the same, which would deny verbal inspiration and preservation if God inspired in the English. And Jesus Himself argues from one letter in the Hebrew OT, when He says "seed" (singular) and not "seeds." Do you understand that there are actual differences between 1611 and 1769? I can name them to you. They are more than spelling differences.
I encourage you to listen, George, instead of a knee-jerk defense of an indefensible position.
Kent
The lie, which I refuted in my comment, was: "You all argue over the Greek and Hebrew texts much in the same way that has caused the arguments and strife over the Holy King James Bible and the 200+ English translations." We don't argue much in the same way. It is a lie when you are not careful with the truth. It doesn't have to be just intentional, when you are careless, and you are either intentional or careless.
George
Ok, Kent. I will have to agree that you do not argue the same way, but you come to the same conclusions. "You all run to the original languages" to believe that you actually found something, but actually it comes to nothing and many times it distorts or confuses what is actually written.
Kent
I didn't call it a "lie" when you said that we don't know what the original languages are. That isn't true, but I don't call it a lie, because I would call it "false." However, when you make a false accusation against us personally, I believe it is a lie.
George
You have no proof what were the original languages spoken or written! Are you trying to make the claim that prior to the languages being confounded (Genesis 11) that they spoke Hebrew? You can make that claim prior to the flood and then after the flood? You can make that claim when the word "Hebrew" is first used for the linage of Abraham? You can trace that back to Shem the father of the children of Eber (Genesis 10:21), but that proves very little.
If Moses wrote the Pentateuch (I believe that to be true), you have no proof that it was written in Hebrew (I BELIEVE it was), for "Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22)", remembering that when he spoke to Pharaoh, all that could have been spoken and written in Egyptian! That would be true of some of the accounts of Joseph's conversations as well (Gen 47:1,15-16, 23). Moving forward, we know that parts of Daniel were written in Aramaic, and even Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 22:2) and would have had to been translated into Greek! Therefore, your original language theory of OT and NT is nothing more than a shot into the wind.
CONTINUED...
Kent
Let me give you two examples to work with from the Hebrew before I get to the Greek of the New Testament. Hebrew is the original language. Adam spoke Hebrew. How do we know this? When you read Adam's first recorded statement in Genesis 2:23, Adam made a word pun that you catch only in the Hebrew language.
George
Adam spoke Hebrew???? Wow, what a fascination with "original languages onlyism" to make that bold claim! I covered that clearly in my last post. Please provide scriptural proof for such an assertion. I am familiar with the prophetic scripture in Zephaniah 3:9 where he will turn people into a "pure language", but that proves nothing! Maybe that pure language in Biblical English as found in a Holy King James Bible!!
Kent
When you read Adam's first recorded statement in Genesis 2:23, Adam made a word pun that you catch only in the Hebrew language. It is a pun not found in any other ancient version. He punned on the name man (ish) with the name of the woman (ishshah, "from the man"). There are several others of these, but a simple point is that the poetic rhythm of Hebrew poetry does not translate into the English.
George
Poetic:
Man- a creation of God
WOman- WOMB-man that brings forth man through the womb of a woman!
Now that is a good pun!
Kent
There is much, much more than this, and you're just denying what is actually found in the text of scripture that magnifies God and the text of scripture, in order to keep your odd English edition position.
George
So now we have "odd" English, rather than scriptural English that gave us the inerrant, infallible Holy Bible! The only thing odd is the one who claims it is odd. I do not need "original languages (whatever that means)" to prove ANYTHING that is biblical.
Kent
You say that the 1611 and 1769 are the same, which would deny verbal inspiration and preservation if God inspired in the English.
George
You do not need the EXACT same words to have verbal inspiration! Anyway, what does VERBAL have to do with inspiration? All SCRIPTURE (i.e., script, that which is written) The quotes written from the OT are not always written with the same EXACT words or form (proven before) in the NT. This does not mean that the words are not inspired.
CONTINUED...
Kent
Do you understand that there are actual differences between 1611 and 1769? I can name them to you.
George
You had 7 REVISIONS of the Holy King James Bible with the last being in 1769. Most of what was fixed was punctuation, word spellings, and some word corrections. So what?
Once again you let the cat out of the bag, for you say, "I believe that the Holy King James Bible is inspired and inerrant, but since it has been updated seven times, how do we no that it does not need more updates?
Is that your position as to why you keep running back to the original languages?
Please make yourself clear, "let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation (James 5:12).
You see I have GREAT faith and believe "without controversy" that what I have in my hands are the VERY WORDS of God that read me as I read them! If the Lord God came and quoted the scriptures in English, he would be quoting the Holy King James Bible.
Kent
I encourage you to listen, George, instead of a knee-jerk defense of an indefensible position.
George
I do not need to defend the scriptures, the words of God. I just have absolute faith in them.
There are many such as myself throughout the whole world that believe in the Holy King James Bible to be the very words of God! We have Anabaptist Bishops in Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Pakistan and India who speak in their native tongues who believe EXACTLY as I believe!! You will never understand that until you get to heaven.
The Holy King James Bible has never failed me once in 33 years of life in Jesus Christ, and it will NEVER fail for all eternity! I have read it over 70 times and gave answer to 1,000s who deny its authority. Therefore, I encourage you to listen and take heed to those whose confidence is steadfast and unmoveable "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first" concerning the English Holy Scriptures.
Let me add some more thoughts to this:
Since you said that Adam spoke Hebrew, why is it that the NT written by JEWS had as its “original language” Greek?
According to all your arguments and basis of original language, this makes no sense at all.
Was it because most of the known world at that time spoke Greek and that most of the writings of learned men were in Greek? Even if that were so, there are NO "original language manuscripts" to confirm that to be so.
Are you going to tell me that all the NT writers, many of them that never left Israel wrote in Greek?
Are you so sure that the book of HEBREWS written in context to saved Jews was “originally written” in Greek?
My whole line of questioning is quite simple, that the Lord God is not interested in ANY particular language, but that which is common to man. Within all that time, he has always had scriptural authority whether you can find it or not. I know this by faith and historical consensus of believers that Greek and Hebrew has NEVER been used in the last 1000 YEARS to preach the gospel or to make disciples of men! What is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the Holy King James Bible has been the English authority for about 400 YEARS and is not to be usurped by those who "run to the Greek or Hebrew" to try to prove that it is the authority over the body of Christ in America or anywhere else English is spoken.
Therefore, doing so causes strife, division and confusion instead of biblical unity.
Can you all not see that?
Hi George,
Let's say your 'man' and 'woman' works as a pun, so that the English came first and the Hebrew after that (which we know isn't true, because the earliest Hebrew copies precede English as a language). You still didn't deal with the acrostic of Psalm 119, and that is just one of many examples.
I asked you about the differences between the 1611 and 1789, because it would seem that perfection should not change. If 1611 was inspired and inerrant, then why were we changing it? It's a translation, George, that's why. It's not what God originally gave. Verbal inspiration, means every letter. Scripture (graphe) means more than just words, but the actual strokes of the writing instrument on the writings surface were inspired. When you admit changes, you are either saying that God didn't give His Words in English or that you don't believe in verbal inspiration. You have your choice there.
I believe in actual perfect preservation of what God inspired. That's a position of faith. Textual critics don't believe that, George.
Our church has biblical unity. We don't have strife, division, and confusion. Sure, there's strife, division, and confusion outside of the church, but there doesn't have to be and there shouldn't be 'in' it.
You ask why Greek for the NT and not Hebrew? First, the right view doesn't have to make sense to you George. You should just accept what God did. That's living by faith. It actually makes sense to me though, because it was a universal language. Christ came in "due time," a time when the Roman roads allowed for the message to spread, Roman peace, and then a language that the Roman empire knew, koine Greek. Second, the prose of the NT is very technical, very exact, and Greek is extremely specific in its communication. Third, we have Israel of the OT and the church of NT, which adds a Gentile world and audience. A lot of the Greek has the Hebraisms of the Jews, giving the NT Greek a Hebrew flavor. Jews would have recognized that.
It is easy to see that the other language translations of the NT -- Latin, English -- came from the Greek, not vice verse. Like with the Hebrew, there are examples of this, including English transliterations of Greek words. There was no English word for that Greek word, so an English word was coined to fit the Greek word. "Angel" comes from "angelos" and "Christ" from "Christos" and "demon" from "daimon" and "zeal" from "zalos" and "mammon" from "mamonas," to name a few And we have all the early copies of the NT are Greek. When they copied, they got Greek copies, not some other language. If the NT was written in some of other language, those would be the copies.
You have an indefensible position, George. I'm a King James guy, because I believe it is an accurate translation from a perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek text. Your position seems to be a pragmatic one, where you defend the King James to alleviate confusion and because it's worked and that kind of thing. The position to defend is the one that fits biblical presuppositions. You should change to do that.
Josh,
I think you mean Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Read the intro to your Scriveners.
;^)
Kent
Let's say your 'man' and 'woman' works as a pun, so that the English came first and the Hebrew after that (which we know isn't true, because the earliest Hebrew copies precede English as a language). You still didn't deal with the acrostic of Psalm 119, and that is just one of many examples.
George
I did not say anything about English coming first, for English has come LAST and it is today the language of the world.
The acrostic is fine for Hebrew, but it proves nothing. Since I am an engineer and mathematics is more of my love, try this “mathematical acrostic”:
Lamentations 1 22 verses
Lamentations 2 22 verses
Lamentations 1 66 verses
Lamentations 1 22 verses
Lamentations 1 22 verses
Let see, there are 22 letters in the Hebrew, 22 x 3 = 66 and there are 66 books in the bible, the 3rd chapter showing the forgiveness and compassion of God which is ultimately Jesus Christ, and all 66 books of the bible make up the Word of God, Jesus Christ.
THAT is only found in an ENGLISH bible; therefore you have to deal with that, but what does that prove?
=============================
Kent
I asked you about the differences between the 1611 and 1789, because it would seem that perfection should not change. If 1611 was inspired and inerrant, then why were we changing it? It's a translation, George, that's why. It's not what God originally gave. Verbal inspiration, means every letter.
George
Come now, Kent. Verbal means “spoken WORDS” and has nothing to do with letters. I already explained to you why they made revisions. I have no problems with that at all. I mean, the Lord God “revised” his words to Jeremiah, for 36:4 says, “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD”, but after “the fire”, the Lord God decided that he need to have “added besides unto them many like words (36:32)”.
Therefore, God himself is NOT interested in what he “originally gave”, therefore, brother, why are you?
============================
Kent
Scripture (graphe) means more than just words, but the actual strokes of the writing instrument on the writings surface were inspired. When you admit changes, you are either saying that God didn't give His Words in English or that you don't believe in verbal inspiration. You have your choice there.
George
You make “scripture” mean more than it does, for scripture is plainly, “what is written”, and as you clearly redefined verbal to mean “every letter”, you come up with this fanciful new doctrine of Gods concern of “strokes”? So, only Greek capital letters run together are the inspired scripture (uncials, papyri and codices)? Are the newly “revised” Greek texts inspired, such as Scriveners, Beza or is it Erasmus’ Greek text?
=================================
CONTINUED...
Kent
I believe in actual perfect preservation of what God inspired. That's a position of faith. Textual critics don't believe that, George.
George
So, which of the Greek fragments are inspired (uncials, papyri and codices)? Are all the papyri inspired from P1 to P76? How about the uncials, such as Aleph, A through G, L PHI, etc.? These were all origina language texts? Then there are the newly “revised” Greek texts, such as Scriveners, Beza and Erasmus’ Greek text. Are those inspired? Putting all those together, and based on your definitions given above, you are IN A MESS! Therefore, the Lord God fixed it all up for us, when he finally put together the “last day language” of the world, and gave us a Holy Bible that is inerrant, infallible and fully the word of God. He set aside that Hebrew and Greek mess a LONG time ago.
============================
Kent
Our church has biblical unity. We don't have strife, division, and confusion. Sure, there's strife, division, and confusion outside of the church, but there doesn't have to be and there shouldn't be 'in' it.
George
I can for certainty say it is not because you teach them Greek or Hebrew.
===========================
Kent
You ask why Greek for the NT and not Hebrew? First, the right view doesn't have to make sense to you George. You should just accept what God did. That's living by faith. It actually makes sense to me though, because it was a universal language.
=============================
George
Neither does it have to make sense to you, but today ENGLISH is the world language. Greek is NOT the universal language, so I am living by faith, knowing that the scriptures have been preserved and are fully known to us in the Holy King James Bible. That makes perfect sense and has been proven to be true based on the consensus of born-gain, Holy Ghost filled, sons of God who have through 400 YEARS of time proven that the Spirit of the Living God has inspired the scriptures found in that Holy Bible.
=============================
Kent
Christ came in "due time," a time when the Roman roads allowed for the message to spread, Roman peace, and then a language that the Roman empire knew, koine Greek. Second, the prose of the NT is very technical, very exact, and Greek is extremely specific in its communication. Third, we have Israel of the OT and the church of NT, which adds a Gentile world and audience. A lot of the Greek has the Hebraisms of the Jews, giving the NT Greek a Hebrew flavor. Jews would have recognized that.
George
That last sentence is pure speculation, but just like the Roman world knew Greek, today we have the whole world learning English! How can you miss that?
=============================
Kent
It is easy to see that the other language translations of the NT -- Latin, English -- came from the Greek, not vice verse.
George
And what does that prove? The scriptures clearly are not interested in what language they were written in, only that “when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, 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 (1 Thessalonians 2:13)”. You see, I received the Holy King James Bible not as “word of men” (Greek and Hebrew texts and lexicons), but rather the word of God and did not know anything about manuscript evidence before I believed it to be so!
===========================
Kent
Like with the Hebrew, there are examples of this, including English transliterations of Greek words. There was no English word for that Greek word, so an English word was coined to fit the Greek word. "Angel" comes from "angelos" and "Christ" from "Christos" and "demon" from "daimon" and "zeal" from "zalos" and "mammon" from "mamonas," to name a few And we have all the early copies of the NT are Greek. When they copied, they got Greek copies, not some other language. If the NT was written in some of other language, those would be the copies.
George
Ok, I understand that, but again what does that prove?? Absolutely nothing when it concerns knowing the scriptures and understanding that once this was accomplished, then the Lord God has moved the word of God forward. As I have said, Matthew 28:19-20 has been accomplished in many other languages in the last 1000 years, and it HAS NOT been in Greek or Hebrew.
===============================
Kent
You have an indefensible position, George. I'm a King James guy, because I believe it is an accurate translation from a perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek text. Your position seems to be a pragmatic one, where you defend the King James to alleviate confusion and because it's worked and that kind of thing. The position to defend is the one that fits biblical presuppositions. You should change to do that.
George
I do not know what you mean that you are a “King James guy”, but it is obvious that you do not believe it is inspired scripture, because it is only an ACCURATE translation. That implies that it is not a PRECISE translation. No, it is you that is pragmatic, for you just USE the bible at your convenience, running to Greek and Hebrew text because the English was not good enough?? No, my brother, I defend the scriptures by having absolute confidence, believing them to be the very words of God without any error, preaching, teaching sound doctrine and exhorting those to do the same. I call that a CLEARLY defensible position and one of great faith.
Dear D4 & Josh,
Not Greek, Hebrew, and Latin,but Greek and Hebrew. The preface to the
Scrivener states specifically that it only follows Greek authority,
and while it indicates that the KJV rendering is at times a literal
rendering of the Latin Vulgate, that doesn't mean that the KJV
followed the Vulgate as its textual basis--it means that the Latin
Vulgate accurately translated the Greek, and so did the KJV, and so
the KJV matches the Vulgate (although Scrivener may think a different
rendering than that of the KJV & Vulgate to be preferable, although he
gave no instances). To prove your affirmation, D4, you would need to
give specific instances where the KJV rejects all Greek authority to
follow Vulgate corruptions/mistranslations, not find places where the
Vulgate and the KJV both translate the Greek the same way. On your
argument, you could as well say that the KJV is translated from Coptic
if the Coptic NT and the KJV happen to both translate the Greek the
same way.I
Dear KJB1611,
That's easy; I cite Scrivener who states (to the best of my recollection, not an actual quote) in certain places the KJV follows no known Greek MS but conforms exactly to the Vulgate.
Also, this:
In a few places, the Authorized Version apparently drew from Latin Vulgate readings and its English text fails to conform to ANY early printed Greek text. Scrivener chose in such cases to follow the nearest possible printed Greek text but did NOT attempt to retranslate from the Latin back into the Greek (as Erasmus has been criticized for doing in the Apocalypse). Thus, in Jn 10:16 the Authorized Version follows the Latin Vulgate by reading “one fold” (Latin, unum ovile, requiring μια αυλη as the Greek which should be restored as “underlying” the Authorized Version). Scrivener instead followed the reading of ALL early printed Greek texts, ALL known Greek manuscripts, Fathers, and other early versions, and printed μια ποιμνη, or “one flock”—even though this does not precisely reflect the AV’s underlying Greek text; such was the closest Scrivener could honestly come without having to perform re-translation from Latin into Greek.
Found here: http://library.logos.com/article/LLS$1.0.326?ArticleId=FRONT&contentType=html
This quoted from d4v34x:
"Scrivener instead followed the reading of ALL early printed Greek texts, ALL known Greek manuscripts, Fathers, and other early versions, and printed μια ποιμνη, or “one flock”—even though this does not precisely reflect the AV’s underlying Greek text; such was the closest Scrivener could honestly come without having to perform re-translation from Latin into Greek."
That quote alone shows you what Scrivener believed about the Holy King James Bible. He thought enough about its authority that he was going to come "the closest" to the "one fold" BEFORE he would "translate from the Greek manuscripts"! He would NOT mess with the English text, or call it wrong, because it had been established by the Holy Ghost as English Authority, the Authorized Holy Bible believed on by even the consensus of that great Greek scholar!
That is something to think about, eh?
George,
I don't know enough about Scrivener to be certain, but I highly doubt his reasons for doing what he did are the reasons you suppose. He surely does not say so in his introduction. Why wouldn't he just come out and say so there if he truly believed what you believe?
My opinion is he just did a reasonable and responsible thing going with the most closely corresponding Greek.
Dear D4,
Scrivener actually didn't say anywhere in his preface that the KJV
follows no known Greek MSS. In his opinion, both the KJV and the
Vulgate somewhat paraphrastically render some verses in the same
manner. That is a radically different affirmation from what you
stated.
The weblink you gave--which was NOT written by Scrivener--affirms that
the KJV follows the Vulgate against all Greek authority at times, but
it does not prove that it is so. Making affirmations is one thing,
proving them is another.
John 10:16 does not prove that the KJV follows the Vulgate against all
Greek MSS. As can be noted in Webster's 1828 English dictionary here:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fold
the following definition of the English word "fold" should have been
examined by the person who wrote the article you referenced:
2. A flock of sheep. Hence in a scriptural sense, the church, the
flock of the Shepherd of Israel.
Thus, the English word "fold" can mean "flock." John 10:16 does not
prove that the KJV rejected the Greek text which properly reads
"flock" for some other word. At least the author of the article you
linked said the KJV "apparently" followed the Vulgate against the
Greek, rather than dogmatically affirming that it was so--and perhaps
it is not as apparent as he thinks.
I do not believe that there are any instances where it can be
indubitably proven that the KJV does not follow Greek or Hebrew
textual authority. However, if there were such instances--which I do
not believe that there are, or that such can be proven--the Hebrew or
Greek text would have to stand, and the KJV would have to submit.
However, I do not think that such a dichotomy can be proven.
George,
If one reads the writings of Dr. Scrivener, it is apparent that he
would have been astonished at the affirmation that he was a
Ruckmanite. The idea of calling the Greek and Hebrew text that God
gave by inspiration and perfectly preserved "vile," as you have
done--without fear and without repentance--would have been as
repulsive to Dr. Scrivener as it would have been to the Apostles, and
as it is to the Lord Jesus. Christ, the Apostles, and true Baptists
in all ages have feared and trembled before the inspired and preserved
Words of God, not blasphemed them by calling them "vile," as you have
done in the past, and have refused to repent when I confronted you
about it.
I'll post the exact quote from Scrivener himself; the reader can then judge what he was saying.
"It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it follows exactly the Latin Vulgate."
source: Page ix at http://bit.ly/18aSwO2
Also, Thomas, I have to call foul on your using a dictionary definition for fold that may directly arise from the passage under debate, as that dictionary itself states, per the citation in that very dictionary!
Hi D4,
Scrivener is a rabbit trail from this post. Where did I say anything about Scrivener? It was just a drive-by shot by you. I would be fine hearing how it isn't. You are attempting somehow to discredit the point of the post with it. It's another smokescreen as far as I'm concerned. And then we're arguing about what Scrivener said and what he didn't say, maybe because Scrivener is our basis for faith and practice?
Scrivener is a popular shot to something I don't basically use. I use Scrivener, yes. Why not? I could use Beza 1598 and basically be fine. I have Scrivener's annotated, that has both. How about that? It lists in the back the differences.
I was watching a presentation of sola scriptura last night with James White, Carl Trueman, and Phil Johnson. They were mainly setting sola scriptura against the evangelical and we know fundamentalist type of experientialism and subjectivism. I was sitting there thinking of what position we would take if we really did rely on the authority and sufficiency of scripture on the doctrine of preservation. We would have to take my position. Then we bring in the "textual evidence," which is wrought with so much speculation, so, so much that it wouldn't work in a court of law. It's just there to cause doubt. Is the Bible sufficient for doctrine or not? Or do we now have to go to "textual evidence" to offset the doctrine. I just believe the doctrine and interpret the "evidence" in light of it. That's what we're supposed to do as Christians. That's what the history of the doctrine is until the late 19th century. People don't like to talk about that, I've noticed. That suddenly don't like the Westminster Confession, London Baptist Confession, and historical theology.
That's more of where this is at. You don't really know that the KJV translators didn't have Greek manuscript evidence, just because there was something related to some interpretation of what Erasmus did. I really do get tired of all that. What I say is, and I would put in our next book, that actually makes the application of the doctrine to history, that you find men relying on a Greek text for hundreds of years. So there must have been one, and not some extrapolated one. I'm appreciative of Scrivener, but don't read so much into everything about the Latin. God preserved every Word in the Greek or He didn't. The buried text view and the text in heaven view don't represent historic or biblical theology.
I can immediately cede the point of this being a drive by. I didn't, however, intend to undermine your post as much as tweak Joshua a bit as to his lists of languages of preservation. Of course, I think it's Hebrew and Greek. It just seems to me the "words that underlie the KJV" preservation position might have to add Latin to that list.
I would have been content to leave it at that--a puckish tweak. But then George came by and did what he did (which I didn't anticipate) and KJB1611 threw down his challenge (I didn't think he'd bother either).
Sorry to derail as I did. Feel free to moderate my comments (and perhaps the responses of others) as you see fit.
BTW, interesting point about the LBC, as I've been reading through it lately.
D4,
I know I'm being a little hard. I really like you. I do. I get what you're saying about Joshua, but he wasn't making a point to you, even, but to George, and for obvious reasons, and you even turned that one. Joshua didn't even say Scrivener. You bring in the latin, because that's one of those red herrings (IMO) to the argument against the doctrine of preservation, to say that Erasmus back translated from the Latin. I'm watching the closing arguments of the Martin case right now, and it reminds me of the prosecution case. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
You are always welcome here.
No problem at all, Bro. B.
Here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fold?s=t&path=/
definitions #2 & 3 of "fold" that show that John 10:16 is no proof
that the KJV followed the Vulgate against the Greek text:
1. an enclosure for sheep or, occasionally, other domestic animals
2. the sheep kept within it.
3. a flock of sheep.
The Oxford English dictionary agrees also. All the dictionaries have not been changed by King James only people to help cover up a mistranslation in John 10:16.
I have no problem saying that the KJV sometimes translates like the
Vulgate does, but that does not prove that it received either as its
authority rather than the original language text. The KJV translators
looked at how the various ancient versions translated passages, and
that they thought the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, etc. sometimes did a
good job and translated as they did is not at all surprising.
Post a Comment