The Cambridge Declaration

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Is the Cambridge Declaration biblical?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
10,334
1,464
113
#62
What do you do with the fact that the KJV uses the Masoretic text for the OT, yet the apostles quoted from the Septuagint in the NT, and the verses they quoted are significantly different between the two testaments?
That’s a huge myth. I don’t have time to explain tonight, but I’ll be glad to tomorrow when I have time.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,675
1,903
113
#64
That’s a huge myth. I don’t have time to explain tonight, but I’ll be glad to tomorrow when I have time.
What part is the myth?

If you try to find the exact words in the OT KJV for NT KJV quotes, in some cases you cannot find them. However, you can find them in the Septuagint.

In fact, you have the same situation in some of the newer translations.

Personally, I believe in some cases the Septuagint had better manuscript sources for the OT than the Masoretic text.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
14,024
7,570
113
#65
If there’s errors, even one, it ain’t the word of God (even “scribal errors.”)
This is self-refuting. As there are so many differences in the extant manuscripts, you would necessarily have to discard EVERY VERSE that has even the most minor variant. You would probably be left with only one:

"Jesus wept."
 

DB7

Junior Member
Dec 29, 2014
283
138
43
#66
Since I am trained in accounting, I look at materiality, and I think we materially have the word of God..if there are minor scribal errors it is of no real consequence.

Additionally, the Bible has a coherent storyline. I can see the logic of God's mind and plan expressed in it. If there are minor scribal errors, it is pretty much meaningless.
UWC, I hope that i didn't give the impression that I felt any Bible today wasn't sufficient for salvation, edification, reproof and teaching. Yes, the errors are truly immaterial, i would go as far as to say that we almost have +95% of what the original autographs wrote.
I was only contesting infallibility and inerrancy. For let's face it, we don't even know 100% who wrote a lot of it, there are names ascribed to books derived from tradition. Not that I care in the least who wrote it, for like yourself I see the majesty & Wisdom behind it's entirety. But, again, what we have today for English Bibles, are they perfect, complete or infallible, not me!
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,675
1,903
113
#67
UWC, I hope that i didn't give the impression that I felt any Bible today wasn't sufficient for salvation, edification, reproof and teaching. Yes, the errors are truly immaterial, i would go as far as to say that we almost have +95% of what the original autographs wrote.
I was only contesting infallibility and inerrancy. For let's face it, we don't even know 100% who wrote a lot of it, there are names ascribed to books derived from tradition. Not that I care in the least who wrote it, for like yourself I see the majesty & Wisdom behind it's entirety. But, again, what we have today for English Bibles, are they perfect, complete or infallible, not me!
I think I agree with what you've said in regards to Bible translations.

I think the accuracy is higher than 95 percent though..I believe it's more like 99 percent. And, the small scribal errors, etcetera, are meaningless.

By the way, an Egyptian teenager asked me a lot of questions about issues involving scribal errors. He learned about them from Muslim apologists. He was being taunted by his Muslim schoolmates about them. I did heavy research and found that in some cases, the source documents (Hebrew in particular) had slight scribal errors, and there were no existing perfect manuscripts. I could not deny these slight errors, but they were meaningless. I explained the issues to him, and he understood..the roadblocks to his faith were no longer crippling, and eventually he accepted Christ.

However, when he explained the issues to his mother, it messed with her a bit because I think she was very tradition-laden and assumed the text was perfect. I don't think she looked at the issues, but simply didn't want to hear about it from him. I don't think he should have tried to explain it to her anyways, but try telling a teenager that :)
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,635
667
113
#68
Do you have anything to contend for? Do you have the word of God? It’s bizarre that Christians don’t believe God preserved His words as promised.
If you do not think God preserved the Bible, then what did the KJV translators translate from? Do you believe they were dealing with uninspired manuscripts and that an angel delivered the KJV translation on a silver platter?
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,635
667
113
#69
If we all ignored the KJV derail and did not post, it might go away.
 

DB7

Junior Member
Dec 29, 2014
283
138
43
#70
I think I agree with what you've said in regards to Bible translations.

I think the accuracy is higher than 95 percent though..I believe it's more like 99 percent. And, the small scribal errors, etcetera, are meaningless.

By the way, an Egyptian teenager asked me a lot of questions about issues involving scribal errors. He learned about them from Muslim apologists. He was being taunted by his Muslim schoolmates about them. I did heavy research and found that in some cases, the source documents (Hebrew in particular) had slight scribal errors, and there were no existing perfect manuscripts. I could not deny these slight errors, but they were meaningless. I explained the issues to him, and he understood..the roadblocks to his faith were no longer crippling, and eventually he accepted Christ.

However, when he explained the issues to his mother, it messed with her a bit because I think she was very tradition-laden and assumed the text was perfect. I don't think she looked at the issues, but simply didn't want to hear about it from him. I don't think he should have tried to explain it to her anyways, but try telling a teenager that :)
Yes, agreed (BTW, it did say +95%).
I must say that it is a very interesting situation how God devised that his Word be handed down to us. Through such random, haphazard and uncontrolled means. Dispersions, persecutions, unprofessional scribes (some not scribes at all), faulty writing implements and materials, decay, wear & tear, etc... That, again, I am convinced that we have the greatest testimony of the original documents in all of antiquity, it is utterly miraculous!
But like you said, try telling that to a certain type of demograph...?
Excellent work on converting the Muslim!
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
5,635
667
113
#71
I think I agree with what you've said in regards to Bible translations.

I think the accuracy is higher than 95 percent though..I believe it's more like 99 percent. And, the small scribal errors, etcetera, are meaningless.

By the way, an Egyptian teenager asked me a lot of questions about issues involving scribal errors. He learned about them from Muslim apologists. He was being taunted by his Muslim schoolmates about them. I did heavy research and found that in some cases, the source documents (Hebrew in particular) had slight scribal errors, and there were no existing perfect manuscripts. I could not deny these slight errors, but they were meaningless. I explained the issues to him, and he understood..the roadblocks to his faith were no longer crippling, and eventually he accepted Christ.

However, when he explained the issues to his mother, it messed with her a bit because I think she was very tradition-laden and assumed the text was perfect. I don't think she looked at the issues, but simply didn't want to hear about it from him. I don't think he should have tried to explain it to her anyways, but try telling a teenager that :)
Didn't a Muslim Calif burn the versions of the Al Quran that do not conform to the modern version? The Al Quran tells us to read the Taurat and Injil, so it confirms the veracity of these books. And historically, the Christians were reading these same books in the 7th century.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,991
2,133
113
#72
Where? Please tell me where God’s holy words can be found?

I have told you many times that there are many small translation errors in the KJV. Knowing Greek and Hebrew helps. That doesn't make me better than the KJV translators, it just means we have so many more manuscripts available, but also extra biblical sources. The NT has many hapax legomena which means words that only appear once in the NT. So there is nothing internal to compare these words. Archeology has revealed thousands of sources that the KJV translators did not know about. Plus, with over 6000 manuscripts now available, the accuracy of scribal errors can be taken into account.

I think the translators of the KJV did the best with what they had. But, they used Erasmus' translation, a Roman Catholic priest, and he had to translate the way those above him told him too. The Johannine comma and the longer ending of Mark come to mind as spurious, not in the original manuscripts. The later manuscripts have so many additions, and the study of manuscripts is so thorough, scholars can trace back to exactly where those additions occurred.

Then the weird thing about the Byzantine manuscripts not being found till the 4th century AD. There was no small pieces or copies in libraries or anywhere else these were found. IOW, the early church used the Alexandrian manuscripts, not the so called TR or the Byzantine family.

But we've been through this a million times, and you are too stubborn to hear the truth. I think you should read the KJV, if you can understand all the obsolete words and grammar that is not used. I much prefer any modern version. I'm reading the NET with 66,000 footnotes. So many excellent explanations about the Greek and Hebrew, that are informative. Plus loads of books and articles to pursue if you want to know more about that topic.

By the way, I learned Greek and Hebrew from my seminary professors, and 2nd year Greek from Bill Mounce who is one of the top Greek scholars in the world. His dad was, too, and he learned Koine Greek from the time he was a small child. I also have some very interesting Greek grammars and study books that I continue to learn from. Learning a language or just pulling things off the internet, I agree, is not the way to go!
 
Oct 30, 2019
50
48
18
#73
I never knew there were such people as KJV onlyers! Are there many such people? I use KJV, NAB (my daughter's), ESV Study Bible which is my preference, plus online other versions. Surely using several and comparing together with commentaries is the best route?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
10,334
1,464
113
#74
I have told you many times that there are many small translation errors in the KJV. Knowing Greek and Hebrew helps. That doesn't make me better than the KJV translators, it just means we have so many more manuscripts available, but also extra biblical sources. The NT has many hapax legomena which means words that only appear once in the NT. So there is nothing internal to compare these words. Archeology has revealed thousands of sources that the KJV translators did not know about. Plus, with over 6000 manuscripts now available, the accuracy of scribal errors can be taken into account.

I think the translators of the KJV did the best with what they had. But, they used Erasmus' translation, a Roman Catholic priest, and he had to translate the way those above him told him too. The Johannine comma and the longer ending of Mark come to mind as spurious, not in the original manuscripts. The later manuscripts have so many additions, and the study of manuscripts is so thorough, scholars can trace back to exactly where those additions occurred.

Then the weird thing about the Byzantine manuscripts not being found till the 4th century AD. There was no small pieces or copies in libraries or anywhere else these were found. IOW, the early church used the Alexandrian manuscripts, not the so called TR or the Byzantine family.

But we've been through this a million times, and you are too stubborn to hear the truth. I think you should read the KJV, if you can understand all the obsolete words and grammar that is not used. I much prefer any modern version. I'm reading the NET with 66,000 footnotes. So many excellent explanations about the Greek and Hebrew, that are informative. Plus loads of books and articles to pursue if you want to know more about that topic.

By the way, I learned Greek and Hebrew from my seminary professors, and 2nd year Greek from Bill Mounce who is one of the top Greek scholars in the world. His dad was, too, and he learned Koine Greek from the time he was a small child. I also have some very interesting Greek grammars and study books that I continue to learn from. Learning a language or just pulling things off the internet, I agree, is not the way to go!
It comes down to trusting the Lord’s promise to preserve His words for us today. You may give your opinions from studies, professors, etc..and I’ll come back with my own studies, websites, etc...and we’ll get nowhere.

I have full assurance that the KJV is the preserved word of God in the English language. Not one word has been proven in error. Shall we compare fruit?
 

TooFastTurtle

Active member
Apr 10, 2019
460
247
43
#75
I never knew there were such people as KJV onlyers! Are there many such people? I use KJV, NAB (my daughter's), ESV Study Bible which is my preference, plus online other versions. Surely using several and comparing together with commentaries is the best route?
I see you are from the Philippines (or the UK) that is the reason you have not ran into them. It is mostly an American phenomena, where some people believe KJV is THE Bible for english speaking people and all the new versions are wrong and some say even satanic.

To me that is extreme and weird. I know some balanced KJV-Only individuals, but there are also some more cultic ones that are way out there. Steven Anderson would be one example of what I would consider a ridicilous KJV-Only advocate, he believes you cannot be saved without hearing atleast one verse from the KJV (If you are an english speaker). That is insane to me because having a Bible available the way we do today is a fairly modern convenience.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
10,334
1,464
113
#76
I never knew there were such people as KJV onlyers! Are there many such people? I use KJV, NAB (my daughter's), ESV Study Bible which is my preference, plus online other versions. Surely using several and comparing together with commentaries is the best route?
Do you believe any of them to be the word of God? Only one can be or none.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
10,334
1,464
113
#77
I see you are from the Philippines (or the UK) that is the reason you have not ran into them. It is mostly an American phenomena, where some people believe KJV is THE Bible for english speaking people and all the new versions are wrong and some say even satanic.

To me that is extreme and weird. I know some balanced KJV-Only individuals, but there are also some more cultic ones that are way out there. Steven Anderson would be one example of what I would consider a ridicilous KJV-Only advocate, he believes you cannot be saved without hearing atleast one verse from the KJV (If you are an english speaker). That is insane to me because having a Bible available the way we do today is a fairly modern convenience.
It was the belief for hundreds of years for all Christians until the counterfeits came out and started beguiling people through philosophy and vain deceit. God works and not long thereafter, Satan counterfeits. It has been that way since the garden.
 
Oct 30, 2019
50
48
18
#78
I see you are from the Philippines (or the UK) that is the reason you have not ran into them. It is mostly an American phenomena, where some people believe KJV is THE Bible for english speaking people and all the new versions are wrong and some say even satanic.

To me that is extreme and weird. I know some balanced KJV-Only individuals, but there are also some more cultic ones that are way out there. Steven Anderson would be one example of what I would consider a ridicilous KJV-Only advocate, he believes you cannot be saved without hearing atleast one verse from the KJV (If you are an english speaker). That is insane to me because having a Bible available the way we do today is a fairly modern convenience.
Yes British retired in the Philippines. In my opinion the KJV has the most beautiful language and sometimes that just gives an extra feeling to God's message but as to the rest of the argument, yes a weird view.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
10,334
1,464
113
#80
Yes British retired in the Philippines. In my opinion the KJV has the most beautiful language and sometimes that just gives an extra feeling to God's message but as to the rest of the argument, yes a weird view.
It’s weird for a Christian to believe they have the preserved word of God?