Thoughts about using a KJV update?
- Thread starter BibleBeliever5
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Produce an official definition. I am not going to get too picky just an official definition.
I guess I will say I disagree with all of that Bible only and everything else is a theory from that perspective. It is a long standing disagreement. We live in an age of science.....Most Christians have electricity in their homes....that was a theory at one time. Microwave ovens, satellite TV....from a satellite 20,000 miles in space was a theory at one time. the computer you are typing on all was science theory at one time. It was a Sunday school class that I taught one time...
The Christian Matrix, as I call it has a very strong influence on the mind, which could even be called control, but the mind has its own power to override the Christian Matrix. It is called the survival instinct, and once activated, it will mow over the Christian Matrix like it was a steamroller, because the survival instincts will drive reproduction. But then the Christian Matrix affects a broad range of things, case in point; The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that according to Christian teachings, science does not know anything, they are all wrong about the world being billions of years old, their wrong about evolution, and there is no such thing as dinosaurs and cavemen. The Christian Matrix can sustain the belief that science is all bunk! Yet the same mind that would teach this rubbish in Sunday school, when faced with a heart attack, will not drop to his knees and pray until it goes away, he will use that little witchy device that can call anyone in the world, and he will use it to call the technology wagon, otherwise called the ambulance. When it arrives he is not going to instruct the driver to take him to the nearest church, he will want to go to the nearest place of science, the hospital. Then when he gets to the hospital, he is not looking for a preacher, he is hoping that a man of medical science is there, and he hopes that the man believes in science, because if he is one of his Sunday school students, and all he does is pull out a Bible and reads scriptures to him for the next couple hours......he is going to die! Reality trumps fantasy, but he will go back to church preaching that science is all bunk! This man is not alone, most Christians know that science is real even though they are taught and tell others that science is bunk! But when there is a fire, they pull out one the newest items of scientific creations, that smart cell phone and they will call the fire department. Christians are taught that science is bunk! But when they start their Ford pickup that has 32 processers in it....they are confident that it will work. And when they turn on their TV, they are confident they will see a signal transmitted by a satellite orbiting at thousands of miles above the Earth. Science works and is in the real world. God is real and exists in the real world. Any religion that denies reality is teaching lies or at least fantasies! This is the Christian Matrix, that conditions the mind to live in reality, but believe in fantasy. Even though they are taught that sex is evil, dirty, nasty, and sinful, they are going to get naked, have sex, and have children anyway. They are going to profess the fantasy to one another and use it as a religion but deep down they know it is not true. As I said in the beginning of the book, very few people research their choices of religions. Usually they assume the religion of their family or their spouse, the person that knocked on their door, or the convenient church that is close by.
Older people juggle this fantasia pretty well, but as it is now our children are not going to buy into this fantasy. There going to say, “If we are going to believe in fantasy, I would just a soon do the Lord of the Rings.” If we want them to know that God is the real thing, we need to teach the real thing! The Trinity is real, the blessing of the Gods are real, but you can’t expect to ever realize those blessings or have a relationship with a real God, if you are living in a fantasy world!
Oh my gosh you are messed up.....How many denominations are on this forum? All but yours are satanic....you are a joke.
I did not. I agreed there was a flood just not worldwide.....Back then their perception of the world was pretty small.
And again you keep dodging the question.....Should I play some music that would be good for tap dancing.
The topic is too long for this forum. Technically using the Bible's definition, because there is no devil witchcraft discussed in the Bible....the witches were welcomed into Christianity.....they called them Gentiles.
Ya you wished that is what the Greek word meant....Ok, you Christians we love you less so we are burning you for torches to light the night and feeding you to the lions......just love less! Remember there is love there as the animals are eating you. Is that something that the Roman soldiers said to Christ when they looked up at Him nailed on the cross....Don't feel bad, we just love you less!
Would you believe there is a Greek world for love and Greek word for less. Love + Less there ya go. No part of love in the Greco-Roman concept of hate.
If you check all major translations translate this to the English word hate, not love less.
Obscure meaning....maybe....your style of translating scriptures....no surprise.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
This is a truly excellent and comprehensive post. Bravo!
I have tried discussing various subjects with Bible Highlighter many times but his mind is closed. He cannot or will not listen to logic or reason.
I hope that you have more success trying to explain truth and logic to him than I have had, but I have my doubts.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You said:
Atheists attack the Bible. While you may not be an atheist, your approach to the Bible is closely related. You attack the authenticity of the words in Luke 14:26, Revelation 6:13, etcetera. This is exactly what Textual Criticism does in Modern Scholarship today (Which I will explain in another post).
Anyways, you see that I am making a false accusation from your perspective as if that is how things are in reality (When that’s not the case). Your worldview is false in that you think that the Word of God is only mentioned in the manuscripts and that the manuscripts themselves are not the Word of God. This shows that you either have not read the Bible with any kind of understanding or you simply ignore what it says to fit a belief you want to be true.
For example:
Proverbs 30:5 says:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.”
Every “word of God” is pure. This cannot be in reference to Jesus if that is what you think the Word of God is every time the Bible mentions this phrase.
We see it again in Luke 4:4.
Luke 4:4 says,
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
Mark 7:9-13
9 “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Notice that Jesus talks about how they reject the commandment of God by their tradition and he refers to the Law of Moses in how one is to honor their father and mother. Then Jesus says that the Pharisees had made the Word of God (the written commandment of God in Scripture) of no effect by their tradition. So this is an instance where the Word of God can be referred to as Scripture.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:37,
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Paul is saying that we are to regard his writings as the commandments of the Lord. Most of your New Testament comes from the apostle Paul. Jesus said clearly that the commandments of the Lord that were written are in reference to the Word of God. So Paul’s writings are the Word of God.
1 Timothy 3:16-17 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works. All Scripture is inspired by God and not just parts of it. So if all Scripture is inspired by God, then it’s the very words of God to us. God had written His words through men of God.
You said:
Most “KJB Only Advocates” are not saying that God did not use bibles prior to the 1611 King James Bible or the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa. 1900). God can even get a person saved by a Modern Bible. The point and issue here is growth or our Sanctification. A more perfect bible is going to help a person better in their walk with the Lord. In fact, I highly encourage that a Christian should or must read a Modern bible to update the archaic words in the King James Bible. For 1600’s English can be difficult. This is why I am considering in accepting a new term for my position. I am thinking of adopting the term “Prima KJB” which is similar to “Prima Scriptura” (or I may adopt another term) (Note: My belief is similar to Sola Scriptura but I prefer to call it “Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It”). Anyways, the KJB is my primary foundation and that does not mean other bibles cannot be helpful in explaining what the KJB says. Hence, why I am thinking of abandoning the term “KJB Only” (because it is misleading to what I actually believe).
You said:
I am not saying that a person cannot preach from a Modern bible in another country and not get saved. There may be a few small KJB Only groups who may believe otherwise, but I don’t believe they make up the majority of the KJB Only camp.
You said:
As for your claim that you study accurate English bibles:
What Modern bibles do you think are accurate?
As for your claim you study accurate manuscripts:
How do you know they are accurate?
How do you know that the scholars who define the words in English for you from the original languages is not being influenced by their own religious agenda?
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
1 John 5:7 and Unbelief
By Rev. Taylor.
I recently read a thorough and fair defense of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) which reminded me of how the approach of many Christians in the modern church is absolutely backwards when it comes to Scripture. In today’s world of Modern Textual Criticism, Christians seem to take a backwards approach when seeking to determine if they should accept a textual variant as authentic. The method employed by the author of the linked article demonstrates, in my opinion, how textual data should be viewed, so please read the article prior to this one. In this article, I will comment on the two approaches to textual variation and conclude by explaining why I believe the approach taken by the exemplar author is correct.
Method 1: Modern Textual Criticism
I have spent a great deal of time and word count (222,197 words to be exact) on this blog explaining the methods and theology of the Modern Textual Critics and advocates. I have pointed out, using the words of the textual scholars, that there is no Modern Critical Text, there is no end in sight to the current effort, and adopting the Modern Critical Text means also to reject providential preservation. In all these words, I have yet to describe the approach of the Modern Textual Critic and advocate.
When a defender, advocate, or scholar of the Modern Critical Text approaches a place of textual variation, they do so by first questioning its authenticity. Practically speaking, a variant is to only be questioned if the scholars who produced the NA/UBS platforms have called it into question. That is not to say that others in history haven’t called such texts into question prior to the 20th century, just that these questions are exemplified in the modern critical texts. The reason this is problematic is that there is no consistent application of this skepticism applied to every line of Scripture.
See, the epistemological foundation for the Modern Textual Critic, according to Dan Wallace and his colleagues, is that we don’t have what the authors originally wrote, and even if we did, we wouldn’t know it.
This kind of foundation cannot conveniently stop at our favorite three passages. It must apply uniformly across the whole text of the New Testament. If 200 years of textual transmission which saw such a great change to the text from the “Alexandrian” text form to the “Byzantine” text form, then the first 200 years of textual transmission, of which we have basically zero extant evidence for, could also be equally or more significant. That is to say, our 200 year gap in the manuscript data in the first 200 years of the church is enough of a gap to call into question every single passage of the New Testament. This is the logical end of the Critical Text position. There isn’t a single line of Scripture that can be said to be 100% authentic to the pen of the apostolic writers, according to the Modern Critical Text advocate. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is not a single textual scholar or apologist that will lay claim to any specific percentage or list of authentic passages.
So when an advocate of the Modern Critical Text challenges a textual variant, they do so selectively and arbitrarily. Once they have identified a passage, verse, or word that they do not believe original, the goal is to then “disprove” that the reading was authentic. The text is on trial, and the Modern Critical Text advocate is the prosecutor. It is not a question of “Is this text authentic?”, it is a question of, “Why is this text inauthentic and how did it get there?” If they were consistent, they would apply this same approach to every line of Holy Scripture, and have no evidential reason to accept one reading or another. The evidential foundation for their approach is based upon manuscripts that are dated 200 years or more after the New Testament was written without any supporting evidence that those texts date back to the Apostles. This is the fatal flaw in Modern Textual Criticism – there is nothing that ties their text back to the original, and there never will be. That is why approach matters.
Method 2: Preservationist
In contrast to the first method, the Preservationist perspective approaches places of textual variation with the assumption that the original has been preserved, and it can be easily discerned. The preservation of Scripture did not stop with Codex Vaticanus, it carried on through the middle ages and into the Reformation when the world could finally print and mass distribute texts. There is a reason the vast majority of extant manuscripts do not look like Vaticanus or the Modern Critical Text. The church, through transmission and by God’s providence, kept the text pure. Therefore, if a text made it to the mass distribution era of the church, it had been passed along by the era that came before it. Since the church was by and large divided into two represented by the East and West, the combination of these texts yielded the original. That is why the advent of the printing press, the fall of Constantinople, and the Protestant Reformation is such a significant time in church history. It was the first time the church had authentic texts that were being used in one place with the ability to combine them and distribute them church-wide.
So then, to the Preservationist, the question is not, “Is this text authentic?”, it is, “Why did the people of God understand this to be authentic in time and space?” Thus, the burden of proof is not placed on a smattering of early manuscripts that have been in favor for the last 200 years. The Preservationist’s chief effort then is to support the text that has been handed down, rather than question its validity at every place disagreeable to the Vatican Codex. The assumption is that God preserved the text, and we have it. It is a matter of defending what is in our hands, rather than reconstructing what is not in our hands. Once you accept the premise that the Bible has fallen into such disarray that it must be reconstructed, there is not a single passage of Scripture that cannot be called into question. Further, there is no way to validate that any conclusion on a given text speaks conclusively about the original text itself. That is why the current effort is focused on the initial text, not the original. What can be proved is limited to hundreds of years after the Apostles, and even then, “proved” is much stronger language than textual scholars are comfortable with.
(Continued in next post):
By Rev. Taylor.
I recently read a thorough and fair defense of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) which reminded me of how the approach of many Christians in the modern church is absolutely backwards when it comes to Scripture. In today’s world of Modern Textual Criticism, Christians seem to take a backwards approach when seeking to determine if they should accept a textual variant as authentic. The method employed by the author of the linked article demonstrates, in my opinion, how textual data should be viewed, so please read the article prior to this one. In this article, I will comment on the two approaches to textual variation and conclude by explaining why I believe the approach taken by the exemplar author is correct.
Method 1: Modern Textual Criticism
I have spent a great deal of time and word count (222,197 words to be exact) on this blog explaining the methods and theology of the Modern Textual Critics and advocates. I have pointed out, using the words of the textual scholars, that there is no Modern Critical Text, there is no end in sight to the current effort, and adopting the Modern Critical Text means also to reject providential preservation. In all these words, I have yet to describe the approach of the Modern Textual Critic and advocate.
When a defender, advocate, or scholar of the Modern Critical Text approaches a place of textual variation, they do so by first questioning its authenticity. Practically speaking, a variant is to only be questioned if the scholars who produced the NA/UBS platforms have called it into question. That is not to say that others in history haven’t called such texts into question prior to the 20th century, just that these questions are exemplified in the modern critical texts. The reason this is problematic is that there is no consistent application of this skepticism applied to every line of Scripture.
See, the epistemological foundation for the Modern Textual Critic, according to Dan Wallace and his colleagues, is that we don’t have what the authors originally wrote, and even if we did, we wouldn’t know it.
“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.”
Dan Wallace. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii.
Dan Wallace. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii.
This kind of foundation cannot conveniently stop at our favorite three passages. It must apply uniformly across the whole text of the New Testament. If 200 years of textual transmission which saw such a great change to the text from the “Alexandrian” text form to the “Byzantine” text form, then the first 200 years of textual transmission, of which we have basically zero extant evidence for, could also be equally or more significant. That is to say, our 200 year gap in the manuscript data in the first 200 years of the church is enough of a gap to call into question every single passage of the New Testament. This is the logical end of the Critical Text position. There isn’t a single line of Scripture that can be said to be 100% authentic to the pen of the apostolic writers, according to the Modern Critical Text advocate. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is not a single textual scholar or apologist that will lay claim to any specific percentage or list of authentic passages.
So when an advocate of the Modern Critical Text challenges a textual variant, they do so selectively and arbitrarily. Once they have identified a passage, verse, or word that they do not believe original, the goal is to then “disprove” that the reading was authentic. The text is on trial, and the Modern Critical Text advocate is the prosecutor. It is not a question of “Is this text authentic?”, it is a question of, “Why is this text inauthentic and how did it get there?” If they were consistent, they would apply this same approach to every line of Holy Scripture, and have no evidential reason to accept one reading or another. The evidential foundation for their approach is based upon manuscripts that are dated 200 years or more after the New Testament was written without any supporting evidence that those texts date back to the Apostles. This is the fatal flaw in Modern Textual Criticism – there is nothing that ties their text back to the original, and there never will be. That is why approach matters.
Method 2: Preservationist
In contrast to the first method, the Preservationist perspective approaches places of textual variation with the assumption that the original has been preserved, and it can be easily discerned. The preservation of Scripture did not stop with Codex Vaticanus, it carried on through the middle ages and into the Reformation when the world could finally print and mass distribute texts. There is a reason the vast majority of extant manuscripts do not look like Vaticanus or the Modern Critical Text. The church, through transmission and by God’s providence, kept the text pure. Therefore, if a text made it to the mass distribution era of the church, it had been passed along by the era that came before it. Since the church was by and large divided into two represented by the East and West, the combination of these texts yielded the original. That is why the advent of the printing press, the fall of Constantinople, and the Protestant Reformation is such a significant time in church history. It was the first time the church had authentic texts that were being used in one place with the ability to combine them and distribute them church-wide.
So then, to the Preservationist, the question is not, “Is this text authentic?”, it is, “Why did the people of God understand this to be authentic in time and space?” Thus, the burden of proof is not placed on a smattering of early manuscripts that have been in favor for the last 200 years. The Preservationist’s chief effort then is to support the text that has been handed down, rather than question its validity at every place disagreeable to the Vatican Codex. The assumption is that God preserved the text, and we have it. It is a matter of defending what is in our hands, rather than reconstructing what is not in our hands. Once you accept the premise that the Bible has fallen into such disarray that it must be reconstructed, there is not a single passage of Scripture that cannot be called into question. Further, there is no way to validate that any conclusion on a given text speaks conclusively about the original text itself. That is why the current effort is focused on the initial text, not the original. What can be proved is limited to hundreds of years after the Apostles, and even then, “proved” is much stronger language than textual scholars are comfortable with.
(Continued in next post):
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
1 John 5:7 is a perfect example where the two approaches come to two separate conclusions. Since 1 John 5:7 is thinly represented in the extant manuscript data, the difference in conclusion on the text is really a matter of approach. The Modern Critical Text crowd has already admitted that even if 1 John 5:7 was original, they wouldn’t know it, so any conclusion jumping off from that point is irrelevant. Nothing they determine can actually be concluded by textual data, and so they engage in story telling. “The passage was brought up from a footnote. It was added to bolster the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.” Yet they do so without any direct evidence claiming this is what happened. Strangely enough, these critics also conveniently reject any evidence offering explanation as to why a passage is not in certain manuscripts. The bias in Modern Textual Criticism to favor manuscripts that have been historically rejected is strong.
If we approach this text from a preservationist perspective, we see that the wording is referenced by Tertullian (2nd century), Origen (3rd Century), Athanasius (4th Century), Priscillian (4th Century), Augustine (4th Century), and directly quoted by Cyprian (3rd Century). The direct quotations can be found in this article. This is not the only support for the passage, but it is enough for the preservationist to support 1 John 5:7 as original. It is enough to defend the text we have in hand, and the text handed down to us from the Reformation era. Accepting the Johannine Comma is not an issue of evidence, because the evidence exists. It is a matter of Bibliology and approach.
Just because a manuscript is surviving today does not mean it is the only manuscript to ever have existed. Textual scholars and apologists carry on about how many Bibles were destroyed during times of persecution and war and fail to acknowledge that those destroyed manuscripts could very well have contained the passages they reject today. The abundance of quotes and references to the passage, along with the reception of the text by our Protestant forefathers informs us that manuscripts with the passage existed, we just don’t have them today. Paradoxically, this is not enough for Modern Critical Text advocates to adjust how they approach textual data. The fact that we do not have an abundance of handwritten manuscripts in 2021 should not be a surprise, seeing as handwritten manuscripts of the Bible haven’t been produced or used in over 400 years. The Protestants and those that came after believed 1 John 5:7 to be original, and even claimed that authentic copies in their day had the passage. They even recognize that there was a time where manuscripts did not have the passage. See Francis Turretin commenting on the three major variants still debated today.
“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress, for although it is lacking in he Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek Manuscripts. Not 1 John 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it…Not Mark 16, which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ”
Francis Turretin. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. 115.
See, an honest scholar would admit that the position of the Protestant and Post-Reformation church was that of the Preservationist. It was that of the TR advocate. Behind closed doors, many prominent modern scholars admit this, they just don’t like it. For more quotations on the passage from historical Protestant theologians, see this article here.
Conclusion
So I argue here in this article that there is a stark difference in approach between the Modern Critical Text advocate and the Preservationist and that the difference in approach is far more significant than the textual data itself. Those in the Modern Critical Text camp are determined to answer “Why is this not Scripture and how did it get in the text?”, whereas the Preservationist says, “This is in our text, how do we support it?” The interesting thing is, that if the Critical Text advocate took the approach of a Preservationist, they would find that the burden of proof they accept for many passages would be enough to accept John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, and 1 John 5:7. The issue is not evidence, it is approach.
If you approach a text with the belief that it is not Scripture as the Modern Critical Text crowd does, you will find that it is not Scripture in your eyes. Yet, as with all claims based on extant textual data, there is no warrant to come to any conclusion. That is why the scholars never do. If you approach the text with the belief that it is Scripture, you will find the the evidence to support that claim. Since the belief of the Preservationist is not based on extant data, the extant data is merely a support, not a foundation. The Preservationist recognizes that extant data will never “prove” the Bible. It is a theological position similar to the resurrected Christ. The most important question is not “what evidence do you have?”, it is, “What does the Bible say?” If it is preserved, than the conclusion is that 1 John 5:7 is original. If Scripture is not preserved and needs to be reconstructed, than the conclusion is not only that 1 John 5:7 is inauthentic, but so is all the rest of Scripture. There is nothing conclusive against 1 John 5:7 that cannot also be conclusive against all of the rest of Scripture. This is inevitable considering the significant gap in our extant manuscript data from the apostolic period to the 3rd century.
This is the reality that those who continue to advocate for Modern Textual Criticism do not understand. The Papyri do not give us a complete look at the first 200 years of textual transmission. Not even close. If we use the argument against John 7:53-8:11 from the Papyri against the rest of Scripture, then we lose everything that’s not in the Papyri. For those that do not know much of the Papyri, we essentially wouldn’t have a Bible. If we apply the same approach that the Modern Critical Text advocate applies to 1 John 5:7, there are no texts in the Bible that are safe. If you are tuned into the textual discussion, you know that this is absolutely the case among the elite textual scholars. See this quote from a recent book by Tommy Wasserman and Jennifer Knust on the Pericope Adulterae.
Do not be mistaken, Christian, the scholars of the Modern Critical Text cannot “prove” any passage, verse, or word of Scripture authentic. Not only that, they openly say they cannot. So then it is a matter of approach, which is determined by theology. What you believe about Scripture will determine what Bible you have in your hands. Do you believe the Bible needs to be reconstructed? You will have in your hands a text that nobody believes represents the original text. Do you believe that the Bible is preserved? You will have in your hands a Bible that was produced by men who believed it was the original text. It is that simple.
Source:
1 John 5:7 and Unbelief
(Note: I agree with the author in this article. This does not mean I agree with his belief in Calvinism or other viewpoints).
If we approach this text from a preservationist perspective, we see that the wording is referenced by Tertullian (2nd century), Origen (3rd Century), Athanasius (4th Century), Priscillian (4th Century), Augustine (4th Century), and directly quoted by Cyprian (3rd Century). The direct quotations can be found in this article. This is not the only support for the passage, but it is enough for the preservationist to support 1 John 5:7 as original. It is enough to defend the text we have in hand, and the text handed down to us from the Reformation era. Accepting the Johannine Comma is not an issue of evidence, because the evidence exists. It is a matter of Bibliology and approach.
Just because a manuscript is surviving today does not mean it is the only manuscript to ever have existed. Textual scholars and apologists carry on about how many Bibles were destroyed during times of persecution and war and fail to acknowledge that those destroyed manuscripts could very well have contained the passages they reject today. The abundance of quotes and references to the passage, along with the reception of the text by our Protestant forefathers informs us that manuscripts with the passage existed, we just don’t have them today. Paradoxically, this is not enough for Modern Critical Text advocates to adjust how they approach textual data. The fact that we do not have an abundance of handwritten manuscripts in 2021 should not be a surprise, seeing as handwritten manuscripts of the Bible haven’t been produced or used in over 400 years. The Protestants and those that came after believed 1 John 5:7 to be original, and even claimed that authentic copies in their day had the passage. They even recognize that there was a time where manuscripts did not have the passage. See Francis Turretin commenting on the three major variants still debated today.
“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress, for although it is lacking in he Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek Manuscripts. Not 1 John 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it…Not Mark 16, which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ”
Francis Turretin. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. 115.
See, an honest scholar would admit that the position of the Protestant and Post-Reformation church was that of the Preservationist. It was that of the TR advocate. Behind closed doors, many prominent modern scholars admit this, they just don’t like it. For more quotations on the passage from historical Protestant theologians, see this article here.
Conclusion
So I argue here in this article that there is a stark difference in approach between the Modern Critical Text advocate and the Preservationist and that the difference in approach is far more significant than the textual data itself. Those in the Modern Critical Text camp are determined to answer “Why is this not Scripture and how did it get in the text?”, whereas the Preservationist says, “This is in our text, how do we support it?” The interesting thing is, that if the Critical Text advocate took the approach of a Preservationist, they would find that the burden of proof they accept for many passages would be enough to accept John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, and 1 John 5:7. The issue is not evidence, it is approach.
If you approach a text with the belief that it is not Scripture as the Modern Critical Text crowd does, you will find that it is not Scripture in your eyes. Yet, as with all claims based on extant textual data, there is no warrant to come to any conclusion. That is why the scholars never do. If you approach the text with the belief that it is Scripture, you will find the the evidence to support that claim. Since the belief of the Preservationist is not based on extant data, the extant data is merely a support, not a foundation. The Preservationist recognizes that extant data will never “prove” the Bible. It is a theological position similar to the resurrected Christ. The most important question is not “what evidence do you have?”, it is, “What does the Bible say?” If it is preserved, than the conclusion is that 1 John 5:7 is original. If Scripture is not preserved and needs to be reconstructed, than the conclusion is not only that 1 John 5:7 is inauthentic, but so is all the rest of Scripture. There is nothing conclusive against 1 John 5:7 that cannot also be conclusive against all of the rest of Scripture. This is inevitable considering the significant gap in our extant manuscript data from the apostolic period to the 3rd century.
This is the reality that those who continue to advocate for Modern Textual Criticism do not understand. The Papyri do not give us a complete look at the first 200 years of textual transmission. Not even close. If we use the argument against John 7:53-8:11 from the Papyri against the rest of Scripture, then we lose everything that’s not in the Papyri. For those that do not know much of the Papyri, we essentially wouldn’t have a Bible. If we apply the same approach that the Modern Critical Text advocate applies to 1 John 5:7, there are no texts in the Bible that are safe. If you are tuned into the textual discussion, you know that this is absolutely the case among the elite textual scholars. See this quote from a recent book by Tommy Wasserman and Jennifer Knust on the Pericope Adulterae.
“Even if the text of the Gospels could be fixed – and, when viewed at the level of object and material artifact, this goal has never been achieved – the purported meanings of texts also change”
Knust & Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone. 15,16.
Knust & Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone. 15,16.
Do not be mistaken, Christian, the scholars of the Modern Critical Text cannot “prove” any passage, verse, or word of Scripture authentic. Not only that, they openly say they cannot. So then it is a matter of approach, which is determined by theology. What you believe about Scripture will determine what Bible you have in your hands. Do you believe the Bible needs to be reconstructed? You will have in your hands a text that nobody believes represents the original text. Do you believe that the Bible is preserved? You will have in your hands a Bible that was produced by men who believed it was the original text. It is that simple.
Source:
1 John 5:7 and Unbelief
(Note: I agree with the author in this article. This does not mean I agree with his belief in Calvinism or other viewpoints).
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You basically implied that my position of regarding God’s Word as perfect… it is idolatry.
No implying, I am saying nothing in this world is perfect, least of all the KJV. There is no Bible out there that is perfect, just some more accurate.
Atheists or idolatry, is that our choices? LOL I do not attack scriptures. Do you hate your mother and father? Just asking. And stars do not fall to earth....just their perspective....God is real....good to keep things in the real.
Are you kidding false accusations are your specialty. Twisting what people say is a bad characteristic. Notice that I do not do that. Case in point....Your worldview is false in that you think that the Word of God is only mentioned in the manuscripts and that the manuscripts themselves are not the Word of God....I did not say that. You are so deceptive that you anger people.
This shows that you either have not read the Bible with any kind of understanding or you simply ignore what it says to fit a belief you want to be true. Oh you so funny! I know the Bible backward and forwards....on the other hand you can read the words, but cannot understand them.
"World view" LOL Do you think God has a world view? God so loved the world.....
So what is your point?
I agree so run away from the KJV.
You missed the point, I said, And there are places today in communist countries that the Bible is illegal and people preach the scriptures and still get saved.
My statement had nothing t do with any Bible, it is about people being saved without a Bible.
As I keep saying, no perfect Bible, just some that are more accurate then others....
Not that you are going to like any of them but....for biblical scholars the NASB, NIV, and ESV usually tops the list as most accurate to the manuscripts.
I have already answered this....I do not like repeating myself.
We do not have any original manuscripts. So scholars focus on the older manuscripts that agree with each other. Then as they look at the manuscripts that come forward they start to degrade....simple corrections made to the manuscripts, that is one of the ways you know they are not a true copy...Then you have added scriptures and reworded scriptures.
That is why you go to the source, you reference the scriptures in the manuscripts. The manuscripts do not have a religious agenda.
No implying, I am saying nothing in this world is perfect, least of all the KJV. There is no Bible out there that is perfect, just some more accurate.
Atheists or idolatry, is that our choices? LOL I do not attack scriptures. Do you hate your mother and father? Just asking. And stars do not fall to earth....just their perspective....God is real....good to keep things in the real.
Are you kidding false accusations are your specialty. Twisting what people say is a bad characteristic. Notice that I do not do that. Case in point....Your worldview is false in that you think that the Word of God is only mentioned in the manuscripts and that the manuscripts themselves are not the Word of God....I did not say that. You are so deceptive that you anger people.
This shows that you either have not read the Bible with any kind of understanding or you simply ignore what it says to fit a belief you want to be true. Oh you so funny! I know the Bible backward and forwards....on the other hand you can read the words, but cannot understand them.
"World view" LOL Do you think God has a world view? God so loved the world.....
So what is your point?
I agree so run away from the KJV.
You missed the point, I said, And there are places today in communist countries that the Bible is illegal and people preach the scriptures and still get saved.
My statement had nothing t do with any Bible, it is about people being saved without a Bible.
As I keep saying, no perfect Bible, just some that are more accurate then others....
Not that you are going to like any of them but....for biblical scholars the NASB, NIV, and ESV usually tops the list as most accurate to the manuscripts.
I have already answered this....I do not like repeating myself.
We do not have any original manuscripts. So scholars focus on the older manuscripts that agree with each other. Then as they look at the manuscripts that come forward they start to degrade....simple corrections made to the manuscripts, that is one of the ways you know they are not a true copy...Then you have added scriptures and reworded scriptures.
That is why you go to the source, you reference the scriptures in the manuscripts. The manuscripts do not have a religious agenda.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
"... The method employed by the author of the linked article demonstrates, in my opinion, how textual data should be viewed" Exactly!
You have shown what your opinion is over and over. Your basic premise is wrong.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I already provided you with one before and you obviously didn’t accept it.
Just Google the beliefs of liberals and compare the ones I mentioned, and you will see that liberals hold to those kinds of beliefs.
I did not make up these definitions. They are on the internet for you to find (if you don’t believe me).
I am not going to keep doing your own homework.
If you want to live in a fantasy world, then by all means.
But there are Christian liberals who are happy to accept the label of liberal.
Type in Liberal Christianity into Google, and just start reading.
You said:
Of course you reject the Bible alone as your guide for all matters of faith and practice. You have not been born again by water (i.e. the Communicated Word, or Scripture). Jesus says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). 1 Peter 1:23 says, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (cf. 1 Peter 1:25, and 1 Peter 2:2). For you, the Bible is a dead book that contains the word of God or some words from God (But Textual Criticism may even take that away from you - leaving you in a complete state of unbelief in GOD in someday). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For you: Faith is whatever you think it should mean.
You said:
Irrelevant. Theories that have turned into scientific observable science is not the same as theories that are unproven and don’t make any logical sense. There are no observable evidences of one species forming into another species. There are just some theories in life that are not established and are simply false. Men having evolved from apes in one of them. It’s a lie fed to the secular unbelieving world (of which you still believe).
Most Christians do not reject science. We accept Observable Science and not stupid hair brained theories.You said:
But you need to recognize the difference between Observable Science and Historical Science.
Here is a short animated video that may help you with that.
We believe the Earth is young because both the Bible and science says so. There are Young Earth Creationists (who are scientists and use science to prove a young Earth). Granted, the focus of my ministry is not a Young Earth, but it is Jesus Christ. But believing the false lie of secular theories will only lead you to having more of a lack of faith in Holy Scripture.
Oh, and most Christians do believe in dinosaurs.
Only a very small few of them out there don’t.
You said:
Some churches may preach against Science, but they would be in the minority in my view and would be cult like.
As for sex:
To be in a right relationship with God, it can only exist within the confines of marriage between a man and a woman according to the Bible.
You said:
Yes, I believe you are living in a fantasy world because you reject the Bible as your primary guide for all matters of faith and practice. You are not living by faith in what God says but you are living by faith in what you think. This does not undo Science - mind you. Many Christians believe in Observable Science and not the fantasy of unproven theories like Evolution or the Earth is billions of years old.
Atheist Scientists have dated rocks at being very young when a Christian gave them rocks from dried up volcanic activity. So this just shows you that they are lying.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You said:
Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life and few be there that find it. Jesus did not say wide is the gate (as you are suggesting).
You said:
Again, we already been over this point and you refused to see it. The point I was making was not that you don’t believe a flood exists. I know you believe a flood happened and it was local to the region or small. The issue here is that you don’t believe in a global flood as taught in the Bible (Genesis 7:19), because you are a liberal and liberals believe in a local flood.
You said:
Did you hit your head and forget our conversation before? I told you sodomy is homosexuality. The fact that you did not grasp this basic teaching in the Bible by Christians as a whole means you simply don’t understand the basics as a Christian. You need to be born again, my friend. You need to accept the Holy Bible as God’s inspired words for us today (that are authoritative for your life). You cannot say certain words in the Bible are in error like Jesus telling us to hate our mother, brother, etcetera. Your understanding on the word “hate” is carnal and or is forced by a modern understanding of that word. Words can change meaning with the passage of time. The word “gay” used to mean happy (when you spoke that word in a conversation). But in time, that word changed in how we use that word in every day conversations. You say that word and people are going to think an entirely different thing. That is what you fail to understand. You fail to understand all metaphors in the Bible, as well.
You said:
No. Witches were not welcomed into Christianity with them continuing to still be witches. Witches were told to repent and accept the gospel in the New Testament. Meaning, they have to forsake their witchcraft in order to be right with God. If they don’t forsake such evil to begin with, they were never saved (even if they did a prayer to accept the Lord Jesus). If they were never willing to change on their past life of sin involving witchcraft they are still dead in their sins. Witchcraft is demonic.
You said:
The Bible has a thing called homonyms within it. They are words that look and sound the same, but they can have different meanings based on the context. You would know this if you truly were born again and studied the Bible and accepted it alone as your authority. Seeing you reject the Bible as a whole you cannot understand it. Many of its truths will not be able to be understood by you.
You said:
So your authority is in Textual Criticism or scholars who seek to change the Bible like you do. That does not sound like a reliable and trustworthy source that seeks to honor the text or Holy Scripture.
Unless you want to argue with the dictionary, it CAN mean “to love less.”You said:
Here it is in the 1913 Webster’s dictionary.
Source:
Hate | Definition of Hate by Webster's Online Dictionary
But if you want to argue with the dictionary, then be my guest.
Last edited:
Jim B
Well-Known Member
You wrote that "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God". BTW, the correct translation is "Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ." Romans 10:17, NET
If you truly believe this, then throw out your King James book. You are not living by faith in what God says but you are living by faith in what you erroneously think.
In your own words, "You need to be born again, my friend. You need to accept the Holy Bible as God’s inspired words for us today (that are authoritative for your life)."
Words can change meaning with the passage of time. That is the primary reason that the early 17th Century Englyshe of the King James Bible is filled with errors.
Finally, my authority is in Textual Criticism and scholars who seek to publish the most accurate English translation of the earliest and best sources. That is their goal, even though you erroneously think it is not because you are so deeply mired in your delusion that the King James Bible is the Word of God.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
@Jim B
Please stop replying to me.
I am not reading your posts anymore at this point.
Why should I? You are just going to continue to offer more hate on for the Bible (the KJB) beyond any rational sense.
Please stop replying to me.
I am not reading your posts anymore at this point.
Why should I? You are just going to continue to offer more hate on for the Bible (the KJB) beyond any rational sense.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To those who either hate the KJB or those who follow it as their sole authority:
People attack banks because there is something of value within them.
It’s the same with the Word of God.
For I did not just randomly select the King James Bible as being the Word of God. It is the most attacked Bible. It is attacked by Modern Bibles, and real human beings. These attacks are for the worse and not for the better. There is also Biblical numerics which confirms the divine nature of the King James Bible, and the fulfillment of prophecy in Psalms 12:6-7 involving the KJB. There is also the number 1611 found when you add up the three verse numbers that talk about how God’s words are like bread. It is the Bible that has stood for hundreds of years long before the Critical Text and Modern Textual Criticism came along and said there is no perfect Bible that you can trust (Thereby taking the Word of God out of people’s hands and making them either liberal or walking away from the faith). For it’s not a coincidence that those Christians who went to Bible college and fell away from the faith is tied to Modern Scholarship that makes them to doubt God’s words. If only they simply trusted that good ole King James Bible by faith that everyone hates. Modern Scholarship may make sense to you and you may hate the idea of reading 1600’s English…
“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27).
People attack banks because there is something of value within them.
It’s the same with the Word of God.
For I did not just randomly select the King James Bible as being the Word of God. It is the most attacked Bible. It is attacked by Modern Bibles, and real human beings. These attacks are for the worse and not for the better. There is also Biblical numerics which confirms the divine nature of the King James Bible, and the fulfillment of prophecy in Psalms 12:6-7 involving the KJB. There is also the number 1611 found when you add up the three verse numbers that talk about how God’s words are like bread. It is the Bible that has stood for hundreds of years long before the Critical Text and Modern Textual Criticism came along and said there is no perfect Bible that you can trust (Thereby taking the Word of God out of people’s hands and making them either liberal or walking away from the faith). For it’s not a coincidence that those Christians who went to Bible college and fell away from the faith is tied to Modern Scholarship that makes them to doubt God’s words. If only they simply trusted that good ole King James Bible by faith that everyone hates. Modern Scholarship may make sense to you and you may hate the idea of reading 1600’s English…
“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Actually my point is that no one agrees on what a liberal is. I see the best example and simplest as the beliefs and initiatives of the democrat party. As far as Christian liberals....those that believe in gay marriage...abortions etc
Again false accusations.....The Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs....but I am not a fundamentalist. The Bible tells of the first 65 years of Christianity, there are 2000 years of Christianity. God id not retire after the biblical era. 2000 years of a very active God. 2000 years of miracles....2000 years of teach us new things....that slavery was bad....that wedding were good....that women are equal partners in Christ and the church....we are still learning that.
Does the Bible tell us all we need to know about salvation? Yes. Is it the end of the Christian story? No. Where there other things that God needed to teach us? Yes.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Baloney.
That’s just another tired rendering from another translation team with nothing better to do than to add yet another version to the huge pile of modern translations since last century.
Mere busy work.
Unfortunately they find an audience for their works…
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Show me the post where you said this. Maybe I missed it.
And hate means hate.
The topic is too long for this forum. Technically using the Bible's definition, because there is no devil witchcraft discussed in the Bible....the witches were welcomed into Christianity.....they called them Gentiles.
The depth of your knowledge is clear in how you address these issues. Tell me when the word witch was first coined. Tell me if it could be in the Bible. For the most part a practicing Pagan that performed rituals was a sorcerer(ess) The word witch and witchcraft cannot appear in the manuscripts because the words did not exist then. Sorcery is the accurate Greek word and it is Pagan....not devil worship. The Bible does not call it devil worship. Can you find a scripture that says devil worship. Millions were tortured and died over this false belief.
Hate is hate and the translators agree with me.
I deserve an award for my patience with you, but now it is spent. Do not address me again.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter said:
Post #541 within this thread.
So you ignore the different meanings in the 1913 Webster’s dictionary.
So it seems you just make the Bible and the dictionary mean whatever you want it to mean.
You are living in fantasy world.
You said:
A quick reply in one or two sentences on your position on this matter is all I am looking for.
But you suggest that witchcraft is not discussed in the Bible? This again shows your lack of either not reading the Bible or understanding it.
Bible Verses About Witchcraft
Again, I ask you: Do you believe a person who is into witchcraft can be continue to be saved after they accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior, and they continue to practice their witchcraft or dark arts? A simple “yes” or “no” is all I am looking for here.
You said:
No. The translators do not agree with you. Most of all your Modern Translations (that come from translators) say this for Luke 14:26:
Source:
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be My disciple.
Similar threads
