Question: Is There an Innerrant Bible?

[Nick01]

Posthuman, I'm not defending a KJVO position. I'm only saying this is an incredibly convoluted and ultimately not meaningful aspect of the argument that doesn't go anywhere. Unicorn (following unicornis and monokeros) is not a meaningfully accurate rendering of the Hebrew, but the meaning of the term depends largely on the meaning you import into.

That meaning is different now to what it once was, and I believe even the 1611 KJV footnotes its use anyway. I could (and indeed I have previously) gone through the history of the use of 'unicorn', but it's beside the point. It's existance in the KJV is almost certainly entirely as a term held over from the Vulgate, and before that the LXX, and one need not attach external mythological constructs to its use (especially seeing as we don't know why monokeros was used in the LXX, given it has no other semantic relationship to the Hebrew except in that text, and DOUBLE ESPECIALLY seeing as monokeros is not the only term used to translate re'em in the LXX)

Bigger fish to fry, etc

 

[Jason0047]

Hi Jason. We've been on this rodeo together before

You make this point frequently, to which the only sensible response is: God's revelation of himself does not subsist in a word-by-word sense, and he has not promised, and indeed has not, preserved the original writings in the way you seem to think he has.

If he HAD, we would reasonablty expect to have either the originals (which could theoretically survived humanly speaking, and certainly could have survived had God wanted them to survive divinely speaking), or alternatively a single codex that incontrovertibly was a 1:1 copy of the original. We do not.

Instead, we have thousands of manuscripts that all disagree with each other, but from within which the authoritative text can be discerned to the earliest possible time. This is what modern textual critics do, that is what the KJV translators did, that is what Stephanus and Erasmus did. They did not transcribe from a single copy, but instead looked at various manuscripts in order to discern the original readings. Does a lack of a single authoritative manuscript square with what you expect God to have done re: preservation?

There is a troubling aspect of what you've said, though. To hide behind "For if there is no perfect [by which I assume you mean verbatim accurate] Word today that is available to us, then we cannot be held to a certain standard. " is like telling your parents you weren't sure whether they said "Do not eat the cookies out of the jar" or "I am telling you to not permit yourself to eat the cookies in the glass container", so therefore you can't be held accountable for eating the cookies. The vast majorities of 'problems' in the text are of this sort. The few that are not do not effect how you should live, or even any doctrine, but simply what we can say Scripture affirmatively says. The foundations are not nearly as shaky as you seem to think they are, and doesn't have anything to do with what the original text said anyway.



Completely subjective argument that has nothing to do with what the original texts actually said, and everything to do with what you personally think is 'good fruit'. Besides, Jesus saying has nothing to do with assessing the quality of a version of Scripture and everything to do with assessing actual people. Specious prooftexting, I'm afraid. And as I said to Andrew, you can only say something is a 'problem' if you are comparing it to something you have already decided is 'correct', and so it's nigh impossible to avoid putting the cart before the horse if you argue that way.



You realise a great many people who translated and who used the KJV were Calvinists, right? George Abbot, who was Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England shortly before the publishing of the AV, was a translator on the KJV and a Calvinist. John Whitgift, another. John Reynolds, a Puritan with a very Reformed soteriology, was one of the key people on the translation project. Miles Smith, Christopher Goodman, Coverdale, Knox, Samson, these were all Reformed theologians and clergy.

Post the reign of Mary I which ended in the mid 1500s, the Church of England was broadly speaking a Calvinist one following the English Reformation. Ironically, during this period one of the main ecclesiological struggles was actually between the Puritans and the Calvinist bishops, who were both Reformed theologically but had wildly varying ecclesiological ideas. Even today, you can find people who defend KJVO like positions precisely BECAUSE they see it as a Reformed text, rather than because it isn't. I've spoken to people who defend the KJV on the basis that "any person with a true Reformed theology and believes in eternal security SHOULD only read the KJV."

All of which is to say - it's not possible to make a case that the KJV is anti-eternal security, unless you read your own biases so far into the text that you're not actually reading the text anymore, but making the text parrot back your own ideas. I think your argument at this point has much more to do with one's own theological presuppositions than the text, because I can find people who are just as KJVO as you but have a completely Calvinist soteriology, while you don't.

Before I begin, I want to say that your position on this issue tends to make it appear like you are attacking God's Word and that we cannot have any assurance in the authority of every word that it says clearly today. For there are some in the "There is no Perfect Word in Our Language Today" camp that say that we cannot even trust the original Hebrew or Greek completely. That there were errors even in the originals. This is a big problem for me because you can stop someone from having trust in their Bible altogether as being the Word of God. For your belief here tends to sow a lack of trust in what we know as the Bible today (Whereas I am teaching people that they can have an assurance and trust in God's Word).

Anyways, to get down to business on the points you brought up,

For one, I do not have a time machine to confirm what man made history actually says. Man made documents are not the same thing as the divinely inpsired Word of God. For surely you do not trust every religious or secular document written today. But yet you believe some man made document (in the past) that some evil men were behind the creation of the KJV is just not all that reliable to me. How do you really know? Were you there when these men written these documents? No. It takes faith for you to believe them. Yet, how then can we know the real truth? Well, Jesus said you will know a tree by it's fruit. Meaning.... that I can test the KJV in the here and now and know that it's fruit is good. Unlike Modern Versions, nowhere do I find the devil's name placed within it, and nowhere does it teach immorality. In addition the KJV can be confirmed by Biblical Numerics just like with the original Hebrew and Greek can be confrimed by Biblical Numerics.

Second, I have already mentioned before that Modern Versions do in fact change key verses in my Bible that effects my defending of the faith (Which is very serious to me).

#1. Most Modern Versions eliminate the one verse that is the clearest on the teaching of the Trinity.
(1 John 5:7 KJV). For no other verse just explains it clearly and to the point like this one verse. I have ran into Anti-Trinitarians who believe that 1 John 5:7 is not supposed to be in the Bible. That is their excuse to ignore it.

#2. Some Modern Versions eliminate the second part teaching on the "Condemnation" that says, "Walk after the Spirit."
(See John 3:19-21 KJV vs. Romans 8:1 KJV). This is important teaching in regards to the "Condemnation." I have ran into many OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) Proponents who have said many times that "Walk after the Spirit" is not supposed to be in their Bible as a defense of their sin and still be saved doctrine.

#3. In Modern Translation it does not say, Study to show yourself Approved unto God; It is changed to Show yourself Approved
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). This is an essential doctrinal teaching to the faith that we are to specifically study God's Word so as to be approved unto God. No other verse specifically says it like this one key verse. For God's people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. Great, so if we change this one verse, then that helps the devil to make people think they do not really have to make studying God's Word a priority in their walk with God. For how can I live by speaking every Word of God if not every word is perfect?

#4. We are not they that corrupt the Word is replaced with We are not they that peddle the Word
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV). This is kind of like a "tell." You know a bread crumb or clue that someone is up to no good. See, the very thing that the spirit behind the creators of the Modern Translations do not want you to know about what they are doing is the very thing they have eliminated so that you are clueless as to their form of attack. See, anyone who seriously honest with themself and does a side by side comparison with the KJV and Modern Translations can see that the changes are not for the better, but for the worse. In other words, the Modern Versions have corrupted the message of the Word of God (i.e. the KJV).

#5. Lucifer's name is in Modern Versions. In some Bibles, the devil is wrongfully called "Day Star" (Another name for Jesus) in Isaiah 14:12. It's bad enough that there are self proclaiming Christians today who do not believe there is a devil. But to make matters worse, we have Bibles out there that claim that the devil as having one of the names of Christ. This no doubt will not help me to pin down on who the devil is to these people who do not believe in a devil. So my defense of the faith has crippled in this instance. Jesus is the "Day Star." Not the devil.

#6. In some Modern Bibles, John is eliminated from standing on the seashore (and it is the devil standing on the seashore); This is important because Genesis 22 tells us that Abraham's descendants will possess the gate of Abraham's enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). What these two passages do is tell me that the King James Bible is consistent within itself unlike many Modern Bible Versions. It tells me that the Word is in fact being attacked by the devil by the fact that he wants to place his name within it. It gives me as a believer yet another gem stone in God's Word that it is divinely inspired and that it can be trusted.

Third, as for your point about a word-for-word (or verbatim) translation: Well, my fiance (who is Christian) lives in Brazil and I have flown there many times to be with her and in our many conversations I clearly understand that when words are translated, it is not a word for word translation but yet the same meaning is conveyed. Yes, there are times when certain words are lost in translation, but I do not believe that to be the case with God's Word. How so? Acts chapter 2. God made it possible so that everyone could understand each other in their OWN LANGUAGES. God did not speak to them in some unknown ancient tongue that they had to later decipher. God is consistent in the way that He operates. We can still understand what He says in our own languages today, too. God does not change. We can still clearly know what He is plainly saying without having to spend countless years (And sometimes even lots of money going to a school) arguing with other scholars on what the Hebrew and Greek is actually saying. God is simple. His burden is easy and it is light.

 

[Jason0047]

that's the thing here, mate. i'm not an atheist. i believe the Bible is the word of God, and the last copy of it i bought is actually an authorized KJV.
what you're admitting is my point; that in some cases the best translation that someone in 1611 could come up with is not the right translation, especially in the context of 400 years of development in the English language and scholarship understanding what was meant by some archaic Aramaic and Greek words.

i'm not 'poking holes' in the scripture or even trying to. i'm just hoping to point out that the KJV is not 100% perfect in every way shape and form. if it was, you'd be telling me "the unicorn is a real creature!" instead of "yes in retrospect that word probably means a different animal but 'unicorn' is the best translation they could come up with at the time"

As I said before, scientists today call any one horned animal as being a unicorn. So that argument is just sily. Second, back in the 1600's, the English language was not yet a world language (as it is today). The Word of God was still perfect and preserved in the Latin before the KJV was perfected in 1769 when the English language had perfected their printing process and when they created a standardized form of spelling and grammar.

 

[Andrew1]

Happy to come to the specifics of this post later if you like, but I'm still trying to work out exactly what you mean. We've circled around to 'mistakes' again, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that in a translation sense. You obviously don't mean 'different', because we're both agreed translation by its very nature means things are different and not 'word-for-word', so you must mean something more than 'different'. So what would count as a mistake? Would it be something that's possible at a word for word level, or at a sentence level, paragraph level?

A mistake or errant would simply mean it is an inaccurate translation. Modern versionists claim that there are "non-essential" "mistakes" in all translations (if they are not perfect that means they contain mistakes). I don't believe that in regards to the KJV.

I ask these questions because inevitably when these discussions about 'errant' translations come up with KJV only advocates (and this is translation philosophy rather than textual criticism at this point), the problems are with specific word choices that don't actually have anything to do with the meaning of the text and everything to do with specific words, which often change meaning, or are more opaque, and simply don't work to maintain the same overall meaning anymore in a different language context.

I don't deny that one could use different specific word choices to accurately translate from one language into another. There could be several different ways or words to use to accurately translate. My point is that if the Bible (God's word) is (present tense) inerrant, there must be a 100% accurate translation today. The meaning of the original languages is accounted for in the words that are used to tie the words from the original languages together, in the KJV those words are in italics.

This is a problem because it operates on a very narrow view of language and meaning that actually has very little to do with how people understand texts on their own terms and a lot more to do with an ideological or theological presupposition.

I think the theological presupposition is that "inerrancy" means something other than "inerrancy".

 

[Nick01]

Before I begin, I want to say that your position on this issue tends to make it appear like you are attacking God's Word and that we cannot have any assurance in the authority of every word that it says clearly today. For there are some in the "There is no Perfect Word in Our Language Today" camp that say that we cannot even trust the original Hebrew or Greek completely. That there were errors even in the originals. This is a big problem for me because you can stop someone from having trust in their Bible altogether as being the Word of God. For your belief here tends to sow a lack of trust in what we know as the Bible today (Whereas I am teaching people that they can have an assurance and trust in God's Word).

I'm not attacking anything. What I attack is the assertion that God's authoritative Scriptures can only be found in the KJV, which you may be surprised to learn is an equally big problem for many people who aren't youi.

If I'm attacking anything (and believe when I say I'm not interested in 'attacking' for the sake of it), I'm attacking your own personal view of the Scriptures, which is very different to attacking God's word. I don't believe in God's word on the basis of some flimsy premise that states "Well, I have to find it SOMEWHERE. Might as well be here." I believe it because it stands up on the basis of evidence and testimony, back to the apostles. I don't believe having 100% epistemological certainty about ever single word or variant is possible, or indeed needed on the basis of the evidence. I think the claim that if we can't trust it completely, word by word, we can't trust it authoritatively on substantively, holds up. To me, it sounds like slicing off your nose to spite your face.

Anyway, as you say, onwards

For one, I do not have a time machine to confirm what man made history actually says. Man made documents are not the same thing as the divinely inpsired Word of God. For surely you do not trust every religious or secular document written today. But yet you believe some man made document (in the past) that some evil men were behind the creation of the KJV is just not all that reliable to me. How do you really know? Were you there when these men written these documents? No. It takes faith for you to believe them.

You certainly can do that. I assume you take the same view of the KJV - you can't know anything about that man made document (because men indeed did translate it, and collate the edition it was based on), and so take it on faith. That's fine, go ahead. But that is, I have to say, not an option for many Christians, quite reasonably, and I don't think it at all fits the contour of evangelism and faith found in the New Testament.

Yet, how then can we know the real truth? Well, Jesus said you will know a tree by it's fruit. Meaning.... that I can test the KJV in the here and now and know that it's fruit is good. Unlike Modern Versions, nowhere do I find the evil's name placed within it, and nowhere does it teach immorality.

We've had this argument before, and I've already referenced this argument in this thread in an earlier reply to you. I'm happy to cross post things from previous discussions if you like, but this is a completely subjective argument. I can find godly men who use modern translations and ungodly men who use the KJV. I disagree the modern translations teach immorality. If you want to have a discussion about the 'devils name', find, lets go Riplinger again. But the bottom level is - if you want to judge the basis of a translation on its 'fruit' (a misuse of the reason Jesus said those things, but no matter), you will have to be very selective with your evidence.

In addition the KJV can be confirmed by Biblical Numerics just like with the original Hebrew and Greek can be confrimed by Biblical Numerics.

Muslims say the exact same thing about the Qur'an. Numerics is a pretty specious science to begin with, both it terms of its relevance, and in terms of the statistical meaningfulness of the numbers found. IF we both look hard enough, we can find whatever patterns we want in wherever we choose to look. Given God took the time to verbally speak for the most part plainly through his prophets, I'm not sure what it says that the ultimate proof of his words has to be found in a non-intuitive, contrived, and selective game of maths.

Second, I have already mentioned before that Modern Versions do in fact change key verses in my Bible that effects my defending of the faith (Which is very serious to me).

#1. Most Modern Versions eliminate the one verse that is the clearest on the teaching of the Trinity.
(1 John 5:7 KJV). For no other verse just explains it clearly and to the point like this one verse. I have ran into Anti-Trinitarians who believe that 1 John 5:7 is not supposed to be in the Bible. That is their excuse to ignore it.

I also know Trinitarians who don't think it should be in there. A great many Christadelphians use the KJV, accept the verse, but argue around it. So an argument from outcomes is not just logically fallacious when working out what is true, but it also doesn't make much of a difference. The Trinitarian nature of God is writ large on the whole of the Bible, but people who reject it are going to reject it anyway.

In any case, the evidence textually is against the Comma's authenticity. No Greek manuscript until about the 14th century, no Latin manuscript till the 6th or 7th, no citation by a church father any earlier than that, and certainly not early enough to be authentic, even in the middle of treatises specifically citing other trinitarian texts in the NT to make their case. It fails on the level of historical truth.

Try arguing with a Muslim, trying to convince them of Jesus' deity, while using 1 John 5:7, and see how you go.

#2. Some Modern Versions eliminate the second part teaching on the "Condemnation" that says, "Walk after the Spirit."

(See John 3:19-21 KJV vs. Romans 8:1 KJV). This is important teaching in regards to the "Condemnation." I have ran into many OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) Proponents who have said many times that "Walk after the Spirit" is not supposed to be in their Bible as a defense of their sin and still be saved doctrine.

I've specifically addressed this with you before. In the interests of space saving, I'll link the post here. And, again, many KJV translators, and many uses of the KJV over the years, were ardent Calvinists, so I'm not sure how you believe the absence of those verses collapses the eternal security case.

#3. In Modern Translation it does not say, Study to show yourself Approved unto God; It is changed to Show yourself Approved

(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). This is an essential doctrinal teaching to the faith that we are to specifically study God's Word so as to be approved unto God. No other verse specifically says it like this one key verse. For God's people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. Great, so if we change this one verse, then that helps the devil to make people think they do not really have to make studying God's Word a priority in their walk with God. For how can I live by speaking every Word of God if not every word is perfect?

Here (you've seen this before, deals with the 17th century meaning of 'study') and here (more with the Greek)

#4. We are not they that corrupt the Word is replaced with We are not they that peddle the Word

(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV). This is kind of like a "tell." You know a bread crumb or clue that someone is up to no good. See, the very thing that the spirit behind the creators of the Modern Translations do not want you to know about what they are doing is the very thing they have eliminated so that you are clueless as to their form of attack. See, anyone who seriously honest with themself and does a side by side comparison with the KJV and Modern Translations can see that the changes are not for the better, but for the worse. In other words, the Modern Versions have corrupted the message of the Word of God (i.e. the KJV).

Here. The main point being the Greek underlying the text more accurately refers to shifty marketplace dealings, but the meaning is the same insofar as such transactions were usually understood to be of inferior or deficient goods. The modern rendering is just slightly closer to the Greek, but reads the same in the context of the passage.

#5. Lucifer's name is in Modern Versions. In some Bibles, the devil is wrongfully called "Day Star" (Another name for Jesus) in Isaiah 14:12. It's bad enough that there are self proclaiming Christians today who do not believe there is a devil. But to make matters worse, we have Bibles out there that claim that the devil as having one of the names of Christ. This no doubt will not help me to pin down on who the devil is to these people who do not believe in a devil. So my defense of the faith has crippled in this instance. Jesus is the "Day Star." Not the devil.

I believe in a Devil. I believe he's always been a pretender - he wishes he were God. If you read Isaiah 14 as specifically referencing the devil, then the whole point of that text is to paint Lucifer (Latin word used to reference what was known as the day star, and in the Greek was referenced by the same term Peter uses in the NT, became a proper noun) as trying to be as high as God. It is not at all destructive that Satan is called a day star - in fact, it makes his sin and foolishness even more pronounced, and his ultimate destruction more worthy of glory. I go into HUGE detail on this here.

#6. In some Modern Bibles, John is eliminated from standing on the seashore (and it is the devil standing on the seashore); This is important because Genesis 22 tells us that Abraham's descendants will possess the gate of Abraham's enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). What these two passages do is tell me that the King James Bible is consistent within itself unlike many Modern Bible Versions. It tells me that the Word is in fact being attacked by the devil by the fact that he wants to place his name within it. It gives me as a believer yet another gem stone in God's Word that it is divinely inspired and that it can be trusted.

In the Greek, the difference is literally one extra letter at the end of the word for "I stood". Most likely an accidental addition that crept in later, as the earliest manuscripts from a variety of geographical locations have the reading "I stood". I don't see the connection between Genesis 22 and Revelation 13, where there is no gate mentioned at that verse, and where it makes no difference to the story. If the devil wanted to insert his name into the story, he did a terrible job, because he still gets smashed, and he only got 'He' in, as opposed to 'Satan' or something similar. 'The beast', we can all agree, is mentioned by that name in the very next verse anyway, so I'm not sure how getting an extra he in makes a difference. I just don't see why you think this variant is a 'gotcha' kind of thing to point out, If it was original, I don't see that it matters as much as you say. But the manuscript evidence is quite significant here.

Third, as for your point about a word-for-word (or verbatim) translation: Well, my fiance (who is Christian) lives in Brazil and I have flown there many times to be with her and in our many conversations I clearly understand that when words are translated, it is not a word for word translation but yet the same meaning is conveyed. Yes, there are times when certain words are lost in translation, but I do not believe that to be the case with God's Word. How so? Acts chapter 2. God made it possible so that everyone could understand each other in their OWN LANGUAGES. God did not speak to them in some unknown ancient tongue that they had to later decipher. God is consistent in the way that He operates. We can still understand what He says in our own languages today, too. God does not change. We can still clearly know what He is plainly saying without having to spend countless years (And sometimes even lots of money going to a school) arguing with other scholars on what the Hebrew and Greek is actually saying. God is simple. His burden is easy and it is light.

Yep. Agreed. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote re: the need to 100% certainty regarding each individual word in order to understand what God is telling us.

I don't get the simple and light thing. Jesus was not talking about reading the Scriptures at that point. If he was, would he not have made sure Erasmus got one good Greek text to translate from, instead of having to muck about with several and having to create a new printed edition to translate from? Heck, why not just make it that everyone could just read Greek? If Jesus was meaning what you said he meaned (which I don't think he did), what therefore is an acceptable level of easiness and lightness when it comes to Bible reading and translation?

 

[Jason0047]

In addition, I do not speak or write Hebrew and Greek. In fact, nobody does. For even Hebrew and Greek scholars argue with each other and what the words mean. So I have no solid way of being a good Berean to seek out the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. I am lost in sea of confusion trying to find the truth, when I already have the truth of God's Word perfectly already with a KJV. For there was no perfect Word of God that I can easily read and understand without using some kind of special key code or skeleton key, then how can I really trust the Word of God? God created the universe. He holds all things perfectly together with pin point precision by the Word of His power. Do folks here really expect me to believe that God is powerless to preserve His Word? Do you really expect me to believe that God is the author of confusion?

 

[Jason0047]

I'm not attacking anything. What I attack is the assertion that God's authoritative Scriptures can only be found in the KJV, which you may be surprised to learn is an equally big problem for many people who aren't youi.

If I'm attacking anything (and believe when I say I'm not interested in 'attacking' for the sake of it), I'm attacking your own personal view of the Scriptures, which is very different to attacking God's word. I don't believe in God's word on the basis of some flimsy premise that states "Well, I have to find it SOMEWHERE. Might as well be here." I believe it because it stands up on the basis of evidence and testimony, back to the apostles. I don't believe having 100% epistemological certainty about ever single word or variant is possible, or indeed needed on the basis of the evidence. I think the claim that if we can't trust it completely, word by word, we can't trust it authoritatively on substantively, holds up. To me, it sounds like slicing off your nose to spite your face.

Anyway, as you say, onwards




You certainly can do that. I assume you take the same view of the KJV - you can't know anything about that man made document (because men indeed did translate it, and collate the edition it was based on), and so take it on faith. That's fine, go ahead. But that is, I have to say, not an option for many Christians, quite reasonably, and I don't think it at all fits the contour of evangelism and faith found in the New Testament.



We've had this argument before, and I've already referenced this argument in this thread in an earlier reply to you. I'm happy to cross post things from previous discussions if you like, but this is a completely subjective argument. I can find godly men who use modern translations and ungodly men who use the KJV. I disagree the modern translations teach immorality. If you want to have a discussion about the 'devils name', find, lets go Riplinger again. But the bottom level is - if you want to judge the basis of a translation on its 'fruit' (a misuse of the reason Jesus said those things, but no matter), you will have to be very selective with your evidence.



Muslims say the exact same thing about the Qur'an. Numerics is a pretty specious science to begin with, both it terms of its relevance, and in terms of the statistical meaningfulness of the numbers found. IF we both look hard enough, we can find whatever patterns we want in wherever we choose to look. Given God took the time to verbally speak for the most part plainly through his prophets, I'm not sure what it says that the ultimate proof of his words has to be found in a non-intuitive, contrived, and selective game of maths.



[/FONT][/COLOR]I also know Trinitarians who don't think it should be in there. A great many Christadelphians use the KJV, accept the verse, but argue around it. So an argument from outcomes is not just logically fallacious when working out what is true, but it also doesn't make much of a difference. The Trinitarian nature of God is writ large on the whole of the Bible, but people who reject it are going to reject it anyway.

In any case, the evidence textually is against the Comma's authenticity. No Greek manuscript until about the 14th century, no Latin manuscript till the 6th or 7th, no citation by a church father any earlier than that, and certainly not early enough to be authentic, even in the middle of treatises specifically citing other trinitarian texts in the NT to make their case. It fails on the level of historical truth.

Try arguing with a Muslim, trying to convince them of Jesus' deity, while using 1 John 5:7, and see how you go.



I've specifically addressed this with you before. In the interests of space saving, I'll link the post here. And, again, many KJV translators, and many uses of the KJV over the years, were ardent Calvinists, so I'm not sure how you believe the absence of those verses collapses the eternal security case.



Here (you've seen this before, deals with the 17th century meaning of 'study') and here (more with the Greek)



Here. The main point being the Greek underlying the text more accurately refers to shifty marketplace dealings, but the meaning is the same insofar as such transactions were usually understood to be of inferior or deficient goods. The modern rendering is just slightly closer to the Greek, but reads the same in the context of the passage.



I believe in a Devil. I believe he's always been a pretender - he wishes he were God. If you read Isaiah 14 as specifically referencing the devil, then the whole point of that text is to paint Lucifer (Latin word used to reference what was known as the day star, and in the Greek was referenced by the same term Peter uses in the NT, became a proper noun) as trying to be as high as God. It is not at all destructive that Satan is called a day star - in fact, it makes his sin and foolishness even more pronounced, and his ultimate destruction more worthy of glory. I go into HUGE detail on this here.



In the Greek, the difference is literally one extra letter at the end of the word for "I stood". Most likely an accidental addition that crept in later, as the earliest manuscripts from a variety of geographical locations have the reading "I stood". I don't see the connection between Genesis 22 and Revelation 13, where there is no gate mentioned at that verse, and where it makes no difference to the story. If the devil wanted to insert his name into the story, he did a terrible job, because he still gets smashed, and he only got 'He' in, as opposed to 'Satan' or something similar. 'The beast', we can all agree, is mentioned by that name in the very next verse anyway, so I'm not sure how getting an extra he in makes a difference. I just don't see why you think this variant is a 'gotcha' kind of thing to point out, If it was original, I don't see that it matters as much as you say. But the manuscript evidence is quite significant here.



Yep. Agreed. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what I wrote re: the need to 100% certainty regarding each individual word in order to understand what God is telling us.

I don't get the simple and light thing. Jesus was not talking about reading the Scriptures at that point. If he was, would he not have made sure Erasmus got one good Greek text to translate from, instead of having to muck about with several and having to create a new printed edition to translate from? Heck, why not just make it that everyone could just read Greek? If Jesus was meaning what you said he meaned (which I don't think he did), what therefore is an acceptable level of easiness and lightness when it comes to Bible reading and translation?

If you honestly cannot see it after me showing you actual verses, then I am not really interested in debating the issue with you. You either believe God's Word or you don't believe it. For whether I give you a few verses or a hundred of them. If you refuse to receive the Word into your heart on this issue, then you are never going to get it. I trust God's Word when it says that is perfect and that it would endure forever. I trust in every word of God and that God is simple and easy to understand. If you can't see that, and you are really interested in seeking the truth on this matter, then I would ask God to show you and He will show it to you. Pray... just one more time like you mean it that you want to know if the KJV is truly inspired or not. Ask God (Jeremiah 33:3), and not me (if you can't see it). For He is the One who holds all the answers.

 

[Andrew1]

Andrew 1 Does that mean that any English Bible read before 1611 was not accurate?

Before the reformation there was no complete Bible, God promised to preserve his word but he didn't say when. God began to use William Tyndale in translating the text from Greek and Hebrew into English, the previous English Bibles were not 100% perfect but were far superior to any modern version. Tyndale's started work culminated with the completion of the King James Bible. Before this as I understand the Old Latin, (Not to be confused with the Latin vulgate) contained the inerrant New Testament scriptures. But those were largely destroyed by the Roman Catholic persecution of the Waldenses. (I don't know much about the Waldenses or Old Latin text but to me that explanation makes sense) The Hebrew masoretic text was the inerrant scriptures in Hebrew. Later on the correct reading of the Greek was determined and compiled into the textus-receptus, which underlies the early English Bibles, (except for the Wycliff Bible which was only a translation of the Catholic Latin Vulgate.)

Going back much further there are hundreds of New Testament fragments found that vary slightly due to copyist errors. Are they inerrant as well?

The King James Bible overall agrees with the majority reading among all New-testament manuscripts. There are also early Christian writers that predate the earliest manuscripts who quote scriptures in their works that agree with the King James Bible as opposed to the modern versions.

 

[Jason0047]

Dear Nick01:

What I am trying to say is that you cannot be biased towards your way of thinking. You have to be a good Berean and seek out the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. Can we trust every word in God's Word? I say ..... "Yes. You can." For if you cannot trust one word in the Holy Scriptures, then what makes you trust the rest of it?

 

[Nick01]

A mistake or errant would simply mean it is an inaccurate translation. Modern versionists claim that there are "non-essential" "mistakes" in all translations (if they are not perfect that means they contain mistakes). I don't believe that in regards to the KJV.

Mmmm, there are certainly good translations and bad translations, but I think you can have different translations that are different but still equally 'correct' or valid. Are we confusing the issues of translation and textual criticism? They are two different issues, and many of what people cite as 'mistakes' in modern translations have more to do with the texts being translated from rather than the translation itself. Let me know if this is the case.

I don't deny that one could use different specific word choices to accurately translate from one language into another. There could be several different ways or words to use to accurately translate. My point is that if the Bible (God's word) is (present tense) inerrant, there must be a 100% accurate translation today. The meaning of the original languages is accounted for in the words that are used to tie the words from the original languages together, in the KJV those words are in italics.

I think the theological presupposition is that "inerrancy" means something other than "inerrancy".

So you would say, then, that there is, at least in theory, more than one way you could translate an inerrant text into another inerrant text, and have different texts that are equally inerrant?

Worth pointing out, talking about presupposition, I didn't originally adopt inerrancy as a presupposition to reading the Scriptures, I don't think inerrancy is a word-for-word thing but a 'what is being said' thing, and I don't think inerrancy hinges on whether an identical text exists today (which as a doctrine is better called preservation, and should be discussed seperately). Presumably, if it did, we would be translating from a successive single line of Greek manuscripts, not printed editions collated from texts that disagree.

The originals were inerrant, a translation is not inerrant simply by virtue of being a translation, it is only inerrant insofar as it adheres to what is originally given, and inerrancy is only meaningfully impacted when what is being taught or said is changed, precisely because error is not the same as difference (and I think we just agreed on that).

 

[Andrew1]

Mmmm, there are certainly good translations and bad translations, but I think you can have different translations that are different but still equally 'correct' or valid. Are we confusing the issues of translation and textual criticism? They are two different issues, and many of what people cite as 'mistakes' in modern translations have more to do with the texts being translated from rather than the translation itself. Let me know if this is the case.

Textual criticism is an invalid and unscientific method of translation, it amounts to someones opinion on how the text ought to be translated. Translation based on opinion should be avoided in favor of a more literal approach. Obviously a completely literal approach is impossible that's why other words are used to tie the words in the English languages together in order to get the correct meaning.

So you would say, then, that there is, at least in theory, more than one way you could translate an inerrant text into another inerrant text, and have different texts that are equally inerrant?

Yes, I would say this, although I believe in actuality that only the King James is the fully accurate text that exists in the English language.

Worth pointing out, talking about presupposition, I didn't originally adopt inerrancy as a presupposition to reading the Scriptures, I don't think inerrancy is a word-for-word thing but a 'what is being said' thing, and I don't think inerrancy hinges on whether an identical text exists today (which as a doctrine is better called preservation, and should be discussed seperately).

Inerrancy and preservation are two different but related things. I believe in both inerrancy and preservation if God's inerrant word has been preserved then it must still be without error.

Presumably, if it did, we would be translating from a successive single line of Greek manuscripts, not printed editions collated from texts that disagree.

I don't see why this is a problem for the preservation of God's inerrant scriptures. God didn't after all say when he would preserve them just that he would preserve them. Furthermore I believe the Old Latin (Not Latin Vulgate) was the inerrant New-Testament before the King James Bible came around.

The originals were inerrant, a translation is not inerrant simply by virtue of being a translation, it is only inerrant insofar as it adheres to what is originally given, and inerrancy is only meaningfully impacted when what is being taught or said is changed, precisely because error is not the same as difference (and I think we just agreed on that).

Yes I think that's what I have been saying. So how do you reconcile that with the discrepancies (not differences) among the modern versions, And the discrepancies with the underlying texts used to translate them?

 

[slave]

The thread is about the" right one"...Yet the question of whether scripture is accurate in any must be established. I never get over the way Jesus always asked, "Who do you say that I am?" He knew that based on your foundation of belief all other conclusions would fall under divine guidance or self direction, or as I like to call it, "Garbage in Garbage out"-- mentality. If we doubt Scripture in the slightest our minds shift from the Word Judging us, which is Gods calling, to us judging the Word. This is not only backwards but Satan- backed. In addition, it second guesses Gods conclusion on the matter, dangerous territory.

To be honest we very much need to resolve our position on the accuracy of the Word in each persons mind and heart. A person should actually expect to find things in the Word which don't fit his perspective. After all, doesn't the Word say that the human perspective is, by nature, corrupt? If we change the Word to fit our views [rather than changing our views to fit the Word], all we have accomplished is to bring the Word down to our level of corruption.

Scripture tells us that every word from God is true. It is objectively true from beginning to end--in contrast to subjective opinion that characterizes human writings-- and worthy of acceptance. From cover to cover, every word presupposes this fact. Nothing even hints at the idea that people can decide whether or not to call it factual. The commands [each understood within its context] are given as authoritative and demanding obedience. The facts are given as authoritative and demanding acceptance. The idea that God's Word COULD contain error is as unthinkable [as a legitimate option] as the idea that God Himself could be in error. It is nothing more than a human invention--an evil human invention.

In addition to the fact that every verse presupposes its authoritative nature, there are also specific passages that give us some illumination as to how this was accomplished. After all, God used imperfect men to write down His words. But the Holy Spirit "carried" [moved or directed] them...[2Peter 1:21], so that the final product could be called "God-breathed"...[2 Timothy 3:16]. Although God used the grammar and style of the people who wrote down His Words, the Spirit guaranteed that the final result would not be the prophet's own words..[ 2 Peter 1:20-21]. And so, the Word is "living and active," capable of judging us to the very depth of our hearts..[Hebrews 4:12-13], and of teaching us how to live...[ 2 Timothy 3:16-17].

Yet, after all that we still have this Satan divergent suggestion that God did all that, but we screwed it up enough to lose its value in some, if not most, of todays texts. Really?!! Like the men on the boat with Jesus as He slept thru the storm and the boat was in turmoil, they asked basically "Is there an error in you that you don't see the problem here?"...We need to hear Jesus say to us in this question of "trustworthy texts" ..."Where is your faith?"

So with that foundation laid, more to the question at hand, I believe any text that does not distort the Deity of Christ is useful to the Spirit inside us to guide. Yet in the area of accuracy based on historical recall and numerical stability etc... the KJV shows its fruit to be worthy of God"s anointing. Yet, I also believe God wants us to understand the Word and the ones that highlight the truths to our hearts are also worthy of note, regardless of the adoption of the final accuracy call. This last opinion is mine, yet the Spirit of God testifies to my soul that it is an opinion that pleases Him.........read KJV, and all this is over! read whatever else that doesn't change the Deity of Christ yet aides in the KJV and God will bless: My two cents.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The Bible is complete. There is no other book like the Bible (i.e. the KJV). Biblical numerics confirm the truth of God's Word in both the original languages (Like the Hebrew and Greek) and the English with the KJV.

While I use Modern Version Bibles to help me understand the KJV and the original languages, I do not completely place my faith in all of what they say because:

#1. Many eliminate the one verse that is the clearest on the teaching of the Trinity
(1 John 5:7 KJV).

#2. Some eliminate the second part teaching on the "Condemnation" (walk after the Spirit).
(See John 3:19-21 KJV vs. Romans 8:1 KJV).

#3. Study to show yourself Approved unto God is changed to Show yourself Approved
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).

#4. We are not they that corrupt the Word is replaced with We are not they that peddle the Word
(2 Corinthians 2:17 KJV).

#5. Lucifer's name is in Modern Versions. In some Bibles, the devil is wrongfully called "Day Star" (Another name for Jesus) in Isaiah 14:12.

#6. In some Modern Bibles, John is eliminated from standing on the seashore (and it is the devil standing on the seashore); This is important because Genesis 22 tells us that Abraham's descendants will possess the gate of Abraham's enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom).

1 john 5:7 is a known addition...in fact it was recognized as an addition before the KJV was even translated...this 'issue' is not even an open question among serious bible scholars any more...the verse is indefensible...

'lucifer' is not even a real name...it is the latin translation of the hebrew word 'heylel' which -does- mean 'morning star' or 'day star'...failing to translate this into english was a major oversight by king james' translators that has led to some confusion...'lucifer' is not the name of satan...

in fact 'morning star' is what 'lucifer' means in latin too...not only that but there are ancient latin christian hymns that actually call jesus 'lucifer'!

however this is not a problem for christians...elsewhere in scripture the 'morning stars' are merely a kind of angel...when scripture calls satan 'morning star' it is not exalting him to the position of christ...it is merely identifying him as part of that company of angels... and when scripture calls jesus 'morning star' it is not associating him with satan or these angels...it is merely giving him a title of honor that these angels held...

 

[Jason0047]

1 john 5:7 is a known addition...in fact it was recognized as an addition before the KJV was even translated...this 'issue' is not even an open question among serious bible scholars any more...the verse is indefensible...

Do you think the scholars in Jesus' time were favored by Him? Jesus said beware of the Scribes.

For do you trust man made History or the Bible? I choose the Bible for I cannot prove whether history or scholars are correct. But what I can trust is the Bible.

'lucifer' is not even a real name...

My Bible sure seems to think so.

it is the latin translation of the hebrew word 'heylel' which -does- mean 'morning star' or 'day star'...failing to translate this into english was a major oversight by king james' translators that has led to some confusion...'lucifer' is not the name of satan...

No way. The Scriptures say he is an angel of light. Lucifer actually means.... "light bearer."

in fact 'morning star' is what 'lucifer' means in latin too...not only that but there are ancient latin christian hymns that actually call jesus 'lucifer'!

Yes it does. For Satan has also placed his name into the Bible in other ways. You are just looking for a loophole by some scholars excuse in not wanting to see it. For do you want to see other examples of the devil placing his name in the Bible?

however this is not a problem for christians...

Not everyone who claims to be Christian has spiritual understanding of God's Word.

elsewhere in scripture the 'morning stars' are merely a kind of angel...when scripture calls satan 'morning star' it is not exalting him to the position of christ...it is merely identifying him as part of that company of angels... and when scripture calls jesus 'morning star' it is not associating him with satan or these angels...it is merely giving him a title of honor that these angels held...

No, there is a difference between being called the (generic) morning stars (plural) versus say the "Day Star" (or the Bright and Morning Star). Big difference.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

How do we determine the true Word of God? Jesus said you will know a tree by it's fruit. The KJV is the only Bible that has the best kind of fruit. All other versions have some kind of problem in some way.

jesus never tells us to examine the fruit of bible translations...this is a misapplication of the verse...

also you really -don't- want to get into the topic of fruits...because historically most cults have been founded on the KJV...including the mormons and armstrongists and even the jehovah's witnesses before they wrote their new world translation...and it was a seventh day adventist who started the KJV only movement...

the cults have found the KJV easy to twist and easy to confuse people with...its archaic language allows them to deceive or baffle people into accepting their doctrines...

this is the worst kind of fruit...it is a good thing jesus didn't tell us to judge bible translations based on their fruit...


for the record i like the KJV and while i don't think it is the best general bible translation i do think it is the best one for word studies...it comes the closest to having a 'one to one' correspondence between the original hebrew and greek vocabulary and the translated english vocabulary...which makes it very intuitive and convenient for word studies...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Do you think the scholars in Jesus' time were favored by Him? Jesus said beware of the Scribes.

For do you trust man made History or the Bible? I choose the Bible for I cannot prove whether history or scholars are correct. But what I can trust is the Bible.

i trust the facts...namely the fact that there are -zero- greek texts that contain 1 john 5:7 aside from one that was -fabricated on the spot- by a priest in order to convince erasmus to include the verse in the third edition of his 'textus receptus' compilation... and the fact that you can actually follow the textual progression of the latin vulgate regarding this verse...and what you see is that 1 john 5:7 isn't in the earliest copies...then later copies have its text in the margins as a copyist 'footnote'...and in the latest copies it is inserted directly into the main text...it is fairly obvious what happened...

My Bible sure seems to think so.

no the bible doesn't say lucifer is a proper name...not even yours...but then most KJV onlyists aren't able to figure out their bibles...maybe a simpler version would confuse you less...

No way. The Scriptures say he is an angel of light. Lucifer actually means.... "light bearer."

actually the bible says satan -appears- as an angel of light...get it right...

and yes 'lucifer' literally means 'light bearer' in latin...and in latin the word was used to refer to the 'morning star' venus...

the name 'heylel' in the original hebrew means 'morning star'...and so the latin translators used the latin name for the 'morning star' here...the KJV translators just failed to translate this latin word into english...

Yes it does. For Satan has also placed his name into the Bible in other ways. You are just looking for a loophole by some scholars excuse in not wanting to see it. For do you want to see other examples of the devil placing his name in the Bible?

satan has not snuck himself into other bible translations...apparently i believe more in God's power to preserve his word than you do...

i am not using 'loopholes'...i am going on facts...you are simply basing your argument on your own failure to understand scripture...

Not everyone who claims to be Christian has spiritual understanding of God's Word.

obviously this is so...for example you apparently don't understand that the prohibition against divination means that your numerological 'proofs' are not only invalid but sinful...

No, there is a difference between being called the (generic) morning stars (plural) versus say the "Day Star" (or the Bright and Morning Star). Big difference.

'morning star' as applied to jesus is simply a title of honor...two people can hold the same title...especially when the title is applied to satan mostly with a strongly ironic connotation...

 

[tanach]

In 2011 a copy of the original KJV Bible was published to commerate its 400th Anniversary. It was very different from the modern versions we are used to. There have been a number of changes and revisions since 1611. I agree that some modern Bible translations are bad. I have a personal dislike of the New International Version, but I cant understand this obsession with the KJV. If God made the KJV so perfect why hasnt he done the same with other Bibles. One thing the KJV has in its favour is that you can usually buy it cheaper than the latest more trendy translations.

 

[Nick01]

Dear Nick01:

What I am trying to say is that you cannot be biased towards your way of thinking. You have to be a good Berean and seek out the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. Can we trust every word in God's Word? I say ..... "Yes. You can." For if you cannot trust one word in the Holy Scriptures, then what makes you trust the rest of it?

Well, the reality is that everyone is biased to some degree. That's unavoidable. What matters is what non-subjective evidences can be brought to bear on the argument to shift the weight. You will notice that amongst what I replied to you are Scriptural arguments, that you have not engaged with.

But look, brass tacks: if you're really concerned about eliminating bias, then it would seem to me it's important to analyse other arguments rather than simply say "Well, I believe this because I have faith in it [i.e it is what I think]", which is an entirely subjective argument that is therefore incredibly dependant on bias, one way or the other. Either you think one can have a bias free discussion of the topic, or you don't.

And I addressed your false argument at the end previously. Even if I said that I cannot trust any given portion of Scripture at all (which is itself quite different to saying I have 100% watertight certainty about a given portion), it's silly to think that therefore I can't trust any other given portion of Scripture. There is simply no reason to adopt that argument except as a rhetorical instrument.

 

[Agricola]

One flaw with this whole thread is people seem to think that English is the only language in existance, other than Greek and Latin. By the time the King James bible came to print, rest of Europe already had their copies printed in just about every language going.

 

[Nick01]

Textual criticism is an invalid and unscientific method of translation, it amounts to someones opinion on how the text ought to be translated. Translation based on opinion should be avoided in favor of a more literal approach. Obviously a completely literal approach is impossible that's why other words are used to tie the words in the English languages together in order to get the correct meaning.

So what do you think Erasmus was doing, then? He did not just copy off a single complete Greek version of the Bible - he had to make decisions about variants within the text. And again, textual criticism is a different thing to translation entirely. To be clear: textual criticism is the process of working out the earliest and authoritative version of the text said, in the original language. It does not involve translating the text at all, and is almost entirely based on examining copies of the text in the original language.

Translation is taking whatever source text you want (could be a partial MSS, could be a codex, could be a collated printed edition such as the Textus Receptus or the Nestle-Aland texts), and then rendering what is written in one language into another different language.

Two different things, so let's be clear about what exactly you have issues with in both.

Yes, I would say this, although I believe in actuality that only the King James is the fully accurate text that exists in the English language.

Well, obviously, we disagree on that, but I think we're distilling what your objection is. Have you read Green's Literal Version? Or the Modern English Version? They are both translations in the tradition of the KJV, and use the same TR as their translation base. Would you say they are inerrant to the same degree as the KJV? Why or why not?

Inerrancy and preservation are two different but related things. I believe in both inerrancy and preservation if God's inerrant word has been preserved then it must still be without error.

They certain can be related, but something can be inerrant without being preserved. Now, I happen to think that God's word has been preserved (although I don't believe God ever promised to preserve his word, or to do so in a particular way), but not in a way that means you can simply pick up a manuscript and read straight off it.

I don't see why this is a problem for the preservation of God's inerrant scriptures. God didn't after all say when he would preserve them just that he would preserve them. Furthermore I believe the Old Latin (Not Latin Vulgate) was the inerrant New-Testament before the King James Bible came around.

The first part of what you say is quite correct. The issue, though, is that if God has made it that we have to compare manuscripts, then there is either a human element in preservation a part from God, or God has at certain times supernaturally ensured the correct text is preserved in a particular specific codex or Bible (such as, you claim, the Old Latin Bible) in a way that is not intrinsically testable.

Yes I think that's what I have been saying. So how do you reconcile that with the discrepancies (not differences) among the modern versions, And the discrepancies with the underlying texts used to translate them?

Because the value of translations or copies does not impact the inerrancy of the originals, and so we have to compare discrepant texts to go back to the originals.

The reality is, there are discrepancies in all the manuscripts. You ask how do I reconcile the discrepancies amongst modern versions? I ask, how do you reconcile the discrepancies between any two manuscripts, including the ones used to create the TR?