Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

[reformed1689]

Just did that - Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

You think quoting the ECF prove your point? It doesn't. In fact it can be used for either position and in no way does it vindicate your viewpoint.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Both Tertullian and Cyprian in the 200's.

What I was asking was, where specifically.
Do you have a specific work, chapter and verse you can point me to? I wanna read it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

What I was asking was, where specifically.
Do you have a specific work, chapter and verse you can point me to? I wanna read it.

Do you have access to the Ante-Nicene Fathers? Volume 5, page 423, footnote 5.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Do you have access to the Ante-Nicene Fathers? Volume 5, page 423, footnote 5.

Yes. Thanks! I'll check it out when I get back. I need to step away again.

 

[OzSpen]

Being an 'accurate' or 'faithful translation' of a corrupt text doesn't make the text itself, correct, does it? It is non-sequitur. The N/A and UBS texts (which constantly changes, N/A is on 28th edition now? (and the changes from 25-28 are tremendous) and UBS 5th now right? - Comparison NA28 - UBS5 :: academic-bible.com )

See the real deception of the NA28th edition - TEXTUAL WARFARE ! : Does NESTLE-ALAND 28th Edition of the Greek New Testament WEIGH the Evidence FAIRLY . . . in 1 JOHN 4:3 ?

What 'earliest MSS' are you referring to specifically, and what makes these accurate, and by what standard did you test?

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" is found in the following MSS:

"... K, L, 049, 0142
Cursives: MAJORITY
Vulg-ms
Syr: peshitta, harclean

It is also extant in 0245. ..." - A Closer Look: Early Manuscripts & The AV by Jack Moorman, page 147​

RC,

Being an 'accurate' or 'faithful translation' of a corrupt text

That's your presupposition. You haven't provided evidence that the earliest Greek texts we have, e.g. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are "corrupt".

Because the Alexandrian text type is closest to the original documents, it provides examples of how to examine the accuracy of the earliest Greek texts.

People commonly say to me: But we don’t have the originals so it is pointless to talk about the accuracy or inerrancy of original documents we do not have. Do you think so? I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

‘Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it (Harris 1969:88-89).​

I regularly use an Australian $10 note for purchases. How do I know it is worth $10 when I have never seen the original in the Mint in the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is the capital? The note I use is close to the Mint value for me. I'll continue to use $10 notes, even though I've never seen the original.

Oz

Reference

Harris, R. L. 1957/1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[OzSpen]

What I "need" or "don't need" is irrelevant to what actually "is" "inspired", "preserved" to the present and historically in the text.

What are your criteria for determining that the text is "inspired"?

How do you know that the KJV and the TR are "preserved" as the accurate historical text available today?

 

[OzSpen]

Because it is unscriptural.

Please demonstrate that is so.

 

[Enoch111]

How do you know that the KJV and the TR are "preserved" as the accurate historical text available today?

The evidence speaks for itself. Even Bishop Ellicott (an opponent of the KJV and the TR and a proponent of Westcott and Hort's baloney), had to honestly admit that the traditional Greek text of the Bible which has come down from the autographs within the body of manuscripts is the one that was predominant throughout Christian history. And the TR represents the Byzantine Text, which is the traditional text.

Ellicott was on the Revision Committee which included Westcott, Hort, Scrivener and several others (in the 19th century). Scrivener opposed W & H and their fanciful ideas, but all were agreed that the the predominant Greek text was the traditional text, not the one being promoted. But W & H cooked up a false scenario (without any evidence) that this text had been corrupted.

 

[DNB]

You KJV Onlyists are beyond out-of-your-heads!
For the amount of similarities, between all translations and editions, compared to both the amount and nature of the the variances, and the amount of clarification that is still retained in all translations & versions (for what has allegedly been taken out, still appears elsewhere), for any one to claim that there was a concerted effort at either corruption, manipulation or indoctrination, has got to be a lunatic!
Who conspired to manipulate the manuscripts to conform to their own biases, in such a manner, that leaves so much evidence to the contrarian view?
Whoever can find a passage that they feel has been deliberately altered for some ulterior motive, there is clearly other texts where they allowed the opposite view to be retained. i.e. Who hired these conspirators???

Almost all Bibles & Manuscripts have been faithfully and devotedly copied and preserved by countless geographies and people, leaving us Christians with an almost impeccable manuscript tradition, that almost any translation, including the KJV, allows us to say that we have 95% of the original text.
The best practice, outside of studying the original languages, is to use as many translations as possible, they all have their sincere and reliable merits in order to allow anyone to study and comprehend the perfect Word of God.

You KJV Onlyists are actually offensive, to claim that such incredible and painstaking efforts by our leading textual critics of today, offering the world such accuracy in God's Word, are, according to you, exercises in corruption, and are useless to the modern day exegete. Like I said in my previous post, your sentiments incriminate your competence and true understanding of God's Word. I expect nothing but the most absurd doctrines to come from you narrow minded and foolish eisegetes.

 

[Enoch111]

You KJV Onlyists are actually offensive, to claim that such incredible and painstaking efforts by our leading textual critics of today...

The truth is always offensive, but the truth remains the truth. Since you have clearly failed to investigate this matter thoroughly, kindly start a serious investigation into the truth behind the *leading textual critics*. There are many books that go into the specifics.

 

[reformed1689]

The truth is always offensive, but the truth remains the truth. Since you have clearly failed to investigate this matter thoroughly, kindly start a serious investigation into the truth behind the *leading textual critics*. There are many books that go into the specifics.

The truth is this, KJVO turn the KJV into an idol. That is the extent of it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The truth is this, KJVO turn the KJV into an idol. That is the extent of it.

That is kinda like what I think about Cessationists who claim that the perfect is the Bible and the gifts ceased, even though the Bible they revere teaches on the gifts and gives instructions. So they've made the Bible an idol, yet don't believe the words.

 

[reformed1689]

That is kinda like what I think about Cessationists who claim that the perfect is the Bible and the gifts ceased, even though the Bible they revere teaches on the gifts and gives instructions. So they've made the Bible an idol, yet don't believe the words.

Yeah, that's not exactly the same thing now is it?

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yeah, that's not exactly the same thing now is it?

I like the King James and other versions made from the same origins, because there are more verses and words. Modern versions deleted some verses, and changed the meaning of other verses by deleting the condition. You see I want as much of the Word of God that I can get, and unlike Cessationists, I believe and operate every verse.

 

[reformed1689]

You see I want as much of the Word of God that I can get

And, what if it was not deleting the Words of God, but rather, taking out words that were added TO the Word of God?

Not to mention, the new translations do not delete anything. They are still there.

 

[CharismaticLady]

And, what if it was not deleting the Words of God, but rather, taking out words that were added TO the Word of God?

Not to mention, the new translations do not delete anything. They are still there.

I've already looked into that, and when I found a verse that was claimed to have been added, quoted before the codices for the new translations were created, I saw that scholars made up that claim, and it was really that the Alexandrians deleted them.

I do not respect anyone for having such a lack of the fear of the Lord that they would delete verses, or not believe the verses they have, like Cessationists.

 

[reformed1689]

I've already looked into that, and when I found a verse that was claimed to have been added, quoted before the codices for the new translations were created, I saw that scholars made up that claim, and it was really that the Alexandrians deleted them.

Which, of course, you have no evidence for that. I challenge you to take the TR quiz. TR Quiz - KJV Parallel Bible

The point is, the critical manuscripts do not change any doctrine. Nothing of significance. In fact, they are VIRTUALLY THE SAME. The idea that they are somehow corrupt is nonsense. And, did you know, that in some verses the TR has LESS words than the critical texts? So how do you use your method there of wanting "all the words, more the better, etc"?

 

[reformed1689]

I think everyone should read Dr. Mark Ward's "Authorized." Book Review: Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible

 

[ReChoired]

What are your criteria for determining that the text is "inspired"?

You are asking the wrong question. "your [or my] criteria" are irrelevant, as I keep saying. God already told us in the word. God always get to define. Yet, you have a man-centered view, and I do not. The Bible says:

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

Therefore, the question moves to, "How do I know what is scripture?" Simple, God told us in it, but that is another question and another study.

How do you know that the KJV and the TR are "preserved" as the accurate historical text available today?

I never said anything about 'the TR' (there are several variants). I am not a 'TR' person. I am one who believes what scripture says, in that God "inspired" and "preserved" His word to this present moment, and have His word in my hands and can hold it (KJB), and show it to all for them to see it.

To be a 'TR' person, is close to truth, but not the complete truth, but is more of a 'hedge'. I do not say that the 'TR' (as was consulted for the AV) is not of value. It is, but not in the way others who are 'man-centered' see/understand it.

God already stated that God would "preserve" His words, and I believe that promise:

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

among other texts, and God cannot lie, in that two things, [1] God cannot lie, and [2] God promised, based upon His own name/character to so fulfill His word, which never returns to Him void (empty of fulfillment), for it always bears fruit.

 

[ReChoired]

I think everyone should read Dr. Mark Ward's "Authorized." Book Review: Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible

Yep, man-centered religion. Rely upon this or that guru to 'show' me what the truth of the matter is. They never simply go to the word of God and allow God to define and tell us.

Psa_118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Psa_146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
​

Are you in trouble, in doubt as to what is truth?

Psa_60:11 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.

Psa_108:12 Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man.​