Show me why I'm wrong, then. There's no reason why you should be able to. I discussed those verses specifically with you, I am attempting to deal with the actual texts, (especially the Timothy passage, which is just down to your misreading of what the KJV actually says), so it's up to you whether you want to engage with the actual arguments I put forward, or you can just leave me to sit in ignorance. Not my problem.
Question: Is There an Innerrant Bible?
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
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.
Can a person receive the seed of the Word into their heart if they are refusing to believe God's Word? In other words, if a person refuses to see plainly what a passage says in the Bible, then they are never going to see it (until they believe). This why arguing this point with you involving Scripture is not going to help you.
Last edited:
They were hardly the same kind of scholar. They made no effort to establish a primary text, and their aim was to alter history and Scripture to support their own position. In that sense they are similar to Roman Catholic scholars.
Besides who do you thing translated the KJV? SCHOLARS. So you have shot yourself in the foot. You should not trust the KJV,
OUR Bibles come from 'man-made history', including the KJV. On what grounds can you trust the KJV? Only by drawing on what we know of man-made history. The alternative is to make a shot in the dark. And that is NOT a good way to determine the basis of God's word.
That is the question. Which Bible can you trust? If you are going to trust God's word you have to know what God's word is. And we can only establish that by looking at the facts. If you alternatively argue that 'the Holy Spirit told me' I will just laugh. If I believed everything the Holy Spirit had told people on this site, much of it contradictory, I would be in a total spin.
I consider there are more grounds for accepting the reliability of Nestles Greek text with apparatus, than ANY English version, including the KJV. Indeed I know that the KJV is NOT fully reliable, even though what it is unreliable in will not have a major effect on peoples' spiritual lives.
Lucifer is a Latin name. How then could it be in the original Hebrew text? Thus your Bible is in error.
So is every angel of light (as opposed to angels of darkness) to be called Lucifer? The Hebrew Helal merely means 'bright one'. And in context it actually refers to the king of Babylon.
well there are a number of names which can be referred to Satan, but they are only a matter of opinion. Why should scholars in their hundreds of thousands not want to see it? you live in a dream world of your own.
No and in my view you are deeply lacking in spiritual understanding of God's word. You are tunnel visioned.
Besides who do you thing translated the KJV? SCHOLARS. So you have shot yourself in the foot. You should not trust the KJV,
OUR Bibles come from 'man-made history', including the KJV. On what grounds can you trust the KJV? Only by drawing on what we know of man-made history. The alternative is to make a shot in the dark. And that is NOT a good way to determine the basis of God's word.
That is the question. Which Bible can you trust? If you are going to trust God's word you have to know what God's word is. And we can only establish that by looking at the facts. If you alternatively argue that 'the Holy Spirit told me' I will just laugh. If I believed everything the Holy Spirit had told people on this site, much of it contradictory, I would be in a total spin.
I consider there are more grounds for accepting the reliability of Nestles Greek text with apparatus, than ANY English version, including the KJV. Indeed I know that the KJV is NOT fully reliable, even though what it is unreliable in will not have a major effect on peoples' spiritual lives.
Lucifer is a Latin name. How then could it be in the original Hebrew text? Thus your Bible is in error.
So is every angel of light (as opposed to angels of darkness) to be called Lucifer? The Hebrew Helal merely means 'bright one'. And in context it actually refers to the king of Babylon.
well there are a number of names which can be referred to Satan, but they are only a matter of opinion. Why should scholars in their hundreds of thousands not want to see it? you live in a dream world of your own.
No and in my view you are deeply lacking in spiritual understanding of God's word. You are tunnel visioned.
I agree with you. God is quite able to work through His word even if in the form in which we have it, it has marginal errors.
For although we know that as originally given we can have confidence that God's word is inerrant and God-breathed, we do not have that perfect word today. However, in the end it is not the word which gives us truth, but God speaking through His word. He has thus ensured that we have a word reliable enough for Him to be able to do so.
For although we know that as originally given we can have confidence that God's word is inerrant and God-breathed, we do not have that perfect word today. However, in the end it is not the word which gives us truth, but God speaking through His word. He has thus ensured that we have a word reliable enough for Him to be able to do so.
Perhaps I should have said that the methods of modern textual criticism are unscientific. I don't know much about the methods Erasmus used or the different copies he had, although the earliest manuscripts are not necessarily the most authoritative, seeing corrupted copies of the epistles were being made while the apostles were still alive. The earliest copies were no less subject to corruption than later copies. I suspect Erasmus largely used the most common reading among the texts he had. I imagine he also sought out the writings of early Church Christians who quoted scripture and I suspect he had access to resources that are no longer available.
Concerning modern textual criticism, I'm opposed to any method that is built on the unbiblical premise that the inspired scriptures do not endure forever. Modern textual critics deny, or at best doubt, that the original reading of the scriptures will ever be known and therefore deny the truth of 1Peter 1:23-25.
Concerning translation, Obviously the translation ought to be based on the right text and simply put, translated correctly. Obviously it is possible to translate incorrectly. But the Bible itself has examples of translations that were a part of the originally inspired scripture so the Bible itself is a testament that correct translations are possible. There are discrepancies among the modern translations so obviously there are translations that exist today that are in error, but according to the Bible the inspired word of God endures forever, so a correctly translated Bible that is true to the originals must exist and that's the one we should read.
Well no I have not read either of the versions you mentioned, however in as much as I believe it is possible to accurately translate the Bible in different ways, even the smallest change, one letter or the placement of a punctuation mark can render the passage inaccurate and have a significant affect on the scriptures meaning, So I'm quite sure that though these versions are based on the correct underlying text that they are in all probability still inaccurate.
I'm not sure how God's word could be inerrant without being preserved, that to me is an oxymoron, you will have to explain that one to me. In 1Peter 1:23-25 God very clearly through the inspired words of the apostle Peter promised to preserve his word.
This is interesting to me, if God did not preserve his inerrant word in a way you can simply pick up a book and read it and believe every word without doubting a single word, in what way did he preserve it? How can preservation mean anything other than that God's word has been entirely uncorrupted overtime through His divine providence.
There is no reason to doubt that God had his hand in the preservation process even if he used human beings to do it. God also used human beings to write the inspired inerrant originals.
It seems to me a likely possibility that the Old Latin contained the inerrant preserved text of the New-Testament for those who can't accept that God didn't necessarily have to preserve His word before 1611, just at some point in history. It does not have to be intrinsically testable it just has to be possible. There are short term prophecies of scripture where no fulfillment is recorded yet we accept that those prophecies were fulfilled based on our faith in God's foreknowledge.
Yet the originals are useless to us because they don't exist.
The Bible says that the scriptures are inspired by God, that God cannot lie and that the word of God endures forever. Furthermore If the Old Latin existed as the inerrant New-testament while the TR was being created, it still existed somewhere. It appears the TR became the inerrant Greek text once it was completed.
Concerning modern textual criticism, I'm opposed to any method that is built on the unbiblical premise that the inspired scriptures do not endure forever. Modern textual critics deny, or at best doubt, that the original reading of the scriptures will ever be known and therefore deny the truth of 1Peter 1:23-25.
Concerning translation, Obviously the translation ought to be based on the right text and simply put, translated correctly. Obviously it is possible to translate incorrectly. But the Bible itself has examples of translations that were a part of the originally inspired scripture so the Bible itself is a testament that correct translations are possible. There are discrepancies among the modern translations so obviously there are translations that exist today that are in error, but according to the Bible the inspired word of God endures forever, so a correctly translated Bible that is true to the originals must exist and that's the one we should read.
Well no I have not read either of the versions you mentioned, however in as much as I believe it is possible to accurately translate the Bible in different ways, even the smallest change, one letter or the placement of a punctuation mark can render the passage inaccurate and have a significant affect on the scriptures meaning, So I'm quite sure that though these versions are based on the correct underlying text that they are in all probability still inaccurate.
I'm not sure how God's word could be inerrant without being preserved, that to me is an oxymoron, you will have to explain that one to me. In 1Peter 1:23-25 God very clearly through the inspired words of the apostle Peter promised to preserve his word.
This is interesting to me, if God did not preserve his inerrant word in a way you can simply pick up a book and read it and believe every word without doubting a single word, in what way did he preserve it? How can preservation mean anything other than that God's word has been entirely uncorrupted overtime through His divine providence.
There is no reason to doubt that God had his hand in the preservation process even if he used human beings to do it. God also used human beings to write the inspired inerrant originals.
It seems to me a likely possibility that the Old Latin contained the inerrant preserved text of the New-Testament for those who can't accept that God didn't necessarily have to preserve His word before 1611, just at some point in history. It does not have to be intrinsically testable it just has to be possible. There are short term prophecies of scripture where no fulfillment is recorded yet we accept that those prophecies were fulfilled based on our faith in God's foreknowledge.
Yet the originals are useless to us because they don't exist.
The Bible says that the scriptures are inspired by God, that God cannot lie and that the word of God endures forever. Furthermore If the Old Latin existed as the inerrant New-testament while the TR was being created, it still existed somewhere. It appears the TR became the inerrant Greek text once it was completed.
I don't think I said or implied that the early Christian writers used the textus receptus but they did quote scriptures that are found in the textus receptus that are not found in the earliest known Greek manuscripts. Example:
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]Cyprian 200 - 258 AD. "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." In regards to 1John 5:7.
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]Cyprian 200 - 258 AD. "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." In regards to 1John 5:7.
You have chosen a very bad example, for this is one verse which being found in not a single Greek manuscript out of the thousands passed down (until one was produced specifically to put it in) cannot seriously be seen as Scripture. Only the very naïve would even give it consideration. Thus Cyprian could not be citing Scripture.
Pleas note also that it is pointless to give what YOU claim to be a citation unless you give the reference. I need to check the source. ycour very presentation is vague.
'and these three agree as one' is found in 1 John 5.6. Cyprian probably had this in mind for you will note that his words were NOT a citation of 1 John 5.7. Indeed why should you see it as referring to 1 John 5.7?. He calls Jesus 'the Son' not 'the Word. 'these three are one' is too small a phrase to prove anything. it is quite possible that Cyprian's reference was actually the basis on which the Vulgate included it in the text in error.
Pleas note also that it is pointless to give what YOU claim to be a citation unless you give the reference. I need to check the source. ycour very presentation is vague.
'and these three agree as one' is found in 1 John 5.6. Cyprian probably had this in mind for you will note that his words were NOT a citation of 1 John 5.7. Indeed why should you see it as referring to 1 John 5.7?. He calls Jesus 'the Son' not 'the Word. 'these three are one' is too small a phrase to prove anything. it is quite possible that Cyprian's reference was actually the basis on which the Vulgate included it in the text in error.
Last edited:
It's not a question of believing God's word or not. It's believing your own personal belief that the KJV is the only valid version of it.
You seem ready to argue your point with as much as you can muster most of the time, but the moment someone actually tries to reason with you and question your assumptions or your proofs, you stop. To me, that's a problem, because, as is the case throughout the New Testament, these things should be tested. Testing does not mean believing what you say because you personally think it's true.
You seem ready to argue your point with as much as you can muster most of the time, but the moment someone actually tries to reason with you and question your assumptions or your proofs, you stop. To me, that's a problem, because, as is the case throughout the New Testament, these things should be tested. Testing does not mean believing what you say because you personally think it's true.
You're quite right - there are variants in the earliest versions as much as the later ones. But the point is - if there were differences in the earliest manuscripts from the earliest days, what makes you think then that the later ones are any better. Do you have any evidence to show those later manuscripts were copied not from the manuscripts that we can actually see from the early centuries, but other manuscripts that we have no knowledge of? And are you sure it can't easily be shown that the differences between later and early manuscripts are largely genealogical in nature (i.e the variants in later manuscripts arose for specific reasons from the earlier ones?
And Erasmus did not simply use the most common readings he had. I suggest you actually look at his critical edition, and study up on the topic. His version contains a number of marginal readings that were not the majority reading in his day, let alone compared to the MSS we have today. Valiant has already pointed out 1 John 5:7 to you, which is in an almost insignificant number of MSS of the thousands we have today. Defending it on the grounds of patristic citation is one thing. Defending it as a 'majority' reading is quite another.
1 Peter 1:23-25 (a quote from Isaiah 14, I believe) cannot be so read as to be about the written Scriptures. It's talk about God's will, and his word and command. They endure forever even when creation itself (presumably with printed Bibles), passes away. I don't know how you get to that being a promise about printed Scriptures, unless you make it so.
And while certainly many would say it's impossible to be 100% certain what we have now is the wording of the originals, certainly all evangelical textual scholars, and even several atheistic ones, would say that what we have is undoubtedly so close it makes no real difference. What we have is a good 98% certain, and the rest is either mostly certain, or makes no difference anyway. You may not like that, but it's the reality of the textual situation, and it's certainly not something that made a great deal of difference to the early church fathers or, going by OT citation in the NT, Jesus and the apostles either.
So what you're saying is there is only one way to accurately translate an inerrant text, then? Theoretically it's possible, but you're saying in practice it cannot happen? That sounds a lot more to me as if you just have a commitment to the KJV itself, than to any question of it's accuracy as concerns the original texts.
Well, again, 1 Peter 1 is not a good proof text (not least because the quote by Peter doesn't verbatim match the quote from Isaiah). In any case, why do you think something inerrant must intrinsically be preserved? I could theoretically draw a perfect circle, without a single blemish, but would that mean it would therefore last forever? I just think it's a confusion of categories. You'll have to tell me why you think the two must go together in the case of the Scripture
I think it's been preserved in the totality of the manuscript tradition. This is not that different from what you believe, because you have already accepted that you do not believe there was a single genealogical line of manuscripts uncorrupted through the ages - if there were, Erasmus could simply have transcribed from that. Actually, there would have been no need for a TR at all. So, at minimum, you must also believe that for several hundred years (unless you include the Vulgate as an inerrant version - most KJVO don't, though, and there were variances even among Vulgate copies) one could only discern the 'correct' Scriptures from a plurality of differing MSS, as Erasmus did.
This is quite possible. The problem, of course, is working out which people God used to supernaturally preserve copies. In the cases of the autographs, it's easy - these were affirmed by the church as coming from eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself. Centuries later, though, how do you affirm that? Leaders of the church? The fathers? Kings? If you go that route, you still end up with a multitude of possibilities, many of the more likely ones not conducive to a KJVO position.
Far better, seems to me, to actually look at the MSS and try to establish from the text itself the earliest reading, rather than going the lucky dip and relying on a fairly arbitrary decision on who centuries later copied it out correctly.
So wait. Are you suggesting that God must have preserved his word, but need not necessarily have done so before 1611? Am I just misunderstanding you, or have I got that right?
And sure, it's possible. It's also just as possible that God has not preserved the text in any given single text after the autographs.
Side note: there was no single Old Latin Bible. In fact, the whole fact that there were variants in the old Latin texts (many of which don't support TR readings, but no matter) is what gave rise to the need for a unified liturgical text (the Vulgate)
But we can go back to the original readings through the manuscript tradition. I'm sure we're agreed inerrancy subsists in the originals, and so the reading of the originals is what we want to know. That the original autograph MSS don't exist anymore is inconvenient (would have made life easier if God had preserved the original autographs), but it doesn't mean we can't work out what they said.
Well, the Old Latin disappears completely from the manuscript tradition centuries before the TR (because the Vulgate was essentially designed as a replacement), so it's not at all clear that it bridged straight into the TR. And, again, there was no single 'Old Latin' Bible anyway, so I'm not sure how it could be used to prove a single verbatim inerrant text in one place.
And Erasmus did not simply use the most common readings he had. I suggest you actually look at his critical edition, and study up on the topic. His version contains a number of marginal readings that were not the majority reading in his day, let alone compared to the MSS we have today. Valiant has already pointed out 1 John 5:7 to you, which is in an almost insignificant number of MSS of the thousands we have today. Defending it on the grounds of patristic citation is one thing. Defending it as a 'majority' reading is quite another.
1 Peter 1:23-25 (a quote from Isaiah 14, I believe) cannot be so read as to be about the written Scriptures. It's talk about God's will, and his word and command. They endure forever even when creation itself (presumably with printed Bibles), passes away. I don't know how you get to that being a promise about printed Scriptures, unless you make it so.
And while certainly many would say it's impossible to be 100% certain what we have now is the wording of the originals, certainly all evangelical textual scholars, and even several atheistic ones, would say that what we have is undoubtedly so close it makes no real difference. What we have is a good 98% certain, and the rest is either mostly certain, or makes no difference anyway. You may not like that, but it's the reality of the textual situation, and it's certainly not something that made a great deal of difference to the early church fathers or, going by OT citation in the NT, Jesus and the apostles either.
So what you're saying is there is only one way to accurately translate an inerrant text, then? Theoretically it's possible, but you're saying in practice it cannot happen? That sounds a lot more to me as if you just have a commitment to the KJV itself, than to any question of it's accuracy as concerns the original texts.
Well, again, 1 Peter 1 is not a good proof text (not least because the quote by Peter doesn't verbatim match the quote from Isaiah). In any case, why do you think something inerrant must intrinsically be preserved? I could theoretically draw a perfect circle, without a single blemish, but would that mean it would therefore last forever? I just think it's a confusion of categories. You'll have to tell me why you think the two must go together in the case of the Scripture
I think it's been preserved in the totality of the manuscript tradition. This is not that different from what you believe, because you have already accepted that you do not believe there was a single genealogical line of manuscripts uncorrupted through the ages - if there were, Erasmus could simply have transcribed from that. Actually, there would have been no need for a TR at all. So, at minimum, you must also believe that for several hundred years (unless you include the Vulgate as an inerrant version - most KJVO don't, though, and there were variances even among Vulgate copies) one could only discern the 'correct' Scriptures from a plurality of differing MSS, as Erasmus did.
This is quite possible. The problem, of course, is working out which people God used to supernaturally preserve copies. In the cases of the autographs, it's easy - these were affirmed by the church as coming from eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses to the resurrection itself. Centuries later, though, how do you affirm that? Leaders of the church? The fathers? Kings? If you go that route, you still end up with a multitude of possibilities, many of the more likely ones not conducive to a KJVO position.
Far better, seems to me, to actually look at the MSS and try to establish from the text itself the earliest reading, rather than going the lucky dip and relying on a fairly arbitrary decision on who centuries later copied it out correctly.
So wait. Are you suggesting that God must have preserved his word, but need not necessarily have done so before 1611? Am I just misunderstanding you, or have I got that right?
And sure, it's possible. It's also just as possible that God has not preserved the text in any given single text after the autographs.
Side note: there was no single Old Latin Bible. In fact, the whole fact that there were variants in the old Latin texts (many of which don't support TR readings, but no matter) is what gave rise to the need for a unified liturgical text (the Vulgate)
But we can go back to the original readings through the manuscript tradition. I'm sure we're agreed inerrancy subsists in the originals, and so the reading of the originals is what we want to know. That the original autograph MSS don't exist anymore is inconvenient (would have made life easier if God had preserved the original autographs), but it doesn't mean we can't work out what they said.
Well, the Old Latin disappears completely from the manuscript tradition centuries before the TR (because the Vulgate was essentially designed as a replacement), so it's not at all clear that it bridged straight into the TR. And, again, there was no single 'Old Latin' Bible anyway, so I'm not sure how it could be used to prove a single verbatim inerrant text in one place.
I believe your statement is false that that verse has not been found in a single Greek manuscript, it is a minority reading among the Greek manuscripts but there are a few Greek manuscripts that contain it.
The quote comes from "The Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 5" on page 423
It is plainly obvious that Cyprian was quoting scripture from the words "and again it is written" after referring to John 10:30.
Concerning him calling Jesus 'the Son' and not 'the Word' you will note he said 'it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'. To make the argument that he said 'Son' instead of 'Word' is a very weak argument against him referring to the verse.
If this is true it is rightly so as it is one of many good reasons why they should have included it in the text.
The quote comes from "The Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 5" on page 423
It is plainly obvious that Cyprian was quoting scripture from the words "and again it is written" after referring to John 10:30.
Concerning him calling Jesus 'the Son' and not 'the Word' you will note he said 'it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'. To make the argument that he said 'Son' instead of 'Word' is a very weak argument against him referring to the verse.
If this is true it is rightly so as it is one of many good reasons why they should have included it in the text.
I'm sure valiant will have his own reply, but you don't see it as any kind of problem that Cyprian says Son instead of Word? If you're quoting from a text, you quote from it, you don't change words - that defeats the whole point of the authority of quotation. In fact, his whole quotation:
"And again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one."
... seems to suggest that he only intends "And these three are one" (which is in all the MSS) as the actual quote, instead of the trinitarian section of the verse, that would have been most useful for his argument!. Like saying "It was written about the difficulty of growing roses, 'It's really difficult'. If he knew of an explicitly trinitarian version of 1 John 5:7 (especially when he's defending the Trinity against heretics!), why would he not say something like...
"And again, it is written, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'"
One has to think about which set of circumstances were likely to give rise to the other. Does it make more sense to say that
a) people interpreted 1 John 5:7 (the water, spirit, blood section) as a trinitarian nod even without the explicit reference to the Father Word and Spirit, made note of this in the margins of several MSS or wrote commentaries on it (perhaps even stemming originally from Cyprian's Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:7), and then that crept into the Vulgate when that translation was done, most likely via by a scribe (or several scribes) who wasn't sure if it was commentary or a genuine part of the text ?
Or does it make more sense to say
b) it was original, but that the early church fathers did not outright quote it during the Trinitarian controversies when it would have made sense to do so, that it disappeared almost entirely from the textual tradition across a large geographical area from the earliest days for over a thousand years, being saved as a reading in the Vulgate of all places, only to re-emerge inside the Greek-speaking world centuries after the Vulgate was collated, and even then only in a tiny fraction of all the copies?
"And again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one."
... seems to suggest that he only intends "And these three are one" (which is in all the MSS) as the actual quote, instead of the trinitarian section of the verse, that would have been most useful for his argument!. Like saying "It was written about the difficulty of growing roses, 'It's really difficult'. If he knew of an explicitly trinitarian version of 1 John 5:7 (especially when he's defending the Trinity against heretics!), why would he not say something like...
"And again, it is written, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.'"
One has to think about which set of circumstances were likely to give rise to the other. Does it make more sense to say that
a) people interpreted 1 John 5:7 (the water, spirit, blood section) as a trinitarian nod even without the explicit reference to the Father Word and Spirit, made note of this in the margins of several MSS or wrote commentaries on it (perhaps even stemming originally from Cyprian's Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:7), and then that crept into the Vulgate when that translation was done, most likely via by a scribe (or several scribes) who wasn't sure if it was commentary or a genuine part of the text ?
Or does it make more sense to say
b) it was original, but that the early church fathers did not outright quote it during the Trinitarian controversies when it would have made sense to do so, that it disappeared almost entirely from the textual tradition across a large geographical area from the earliest days for over a thousand years, being saved as a reading in the Vulgate of all places, only to re-emerge inside the Greek-speaking world centuries after the Vulgate was collated, and even then only in a tiny fraction of all the copies?
hello Secularhermit !!!
now you look very young on your avatar
yes, a copy is better than nothing ....but why no choose between the copys the best and most reliable ?
when I started to study english I read in the begining the new international version that was the only version that I knew in english ... but affter a time I started to read the King James version and I fell in love with it ... for the old language and words full of history ... is it easy to transport you to the epoch that speaks the verse in your imagination for the ancient words as the Reina Valera in spanish ....
well have a blessed day
amigo greetings from Japan -tokyo-my house
now you look very young on your avatar yes, a copy is better than nothing ....but why no choose between the copys the best and most reliable ?
when I started to study english I read in the begining the new international version that was the only version that I knew in english ... but affter a time I started to read the King James version and I fell in love with it
... for the old language and words full of history ... is it easy to transport you to the epoch that speaks the verse in your imagination for the ancient words as the Reina Valera in spanish .... well have a blessed day
amigo greetings from Japan -tokyo-my house
T
hello Secularhermit !!!now you look very young on your avatar
yes, a copy is better than nothing ....but why no choose between the copys the best and most reliable ?
when I started to study english I read in the begining the new international version that was the only version that I knew in english ... but affter a time I started to read the King James version and I fell in love with it ... for the old language and words full of history ... is it easy to transport you to the epoch that speaks the verse in your imagination for the ancient words as the Reina Valera in spanish ....
well have a blessed day
amigo greetings from Japan -tokyo-my house
now you look very young on your avatar yes, a copy is better than nothing ....but why no choose between the copys the best and most reliable ?
when I started to study english I read in the begining the new international version that was the only version that I knew in english ... but affter a time I started to read the King James version and I fell in love with it
... for the old language and words full of history ... is it easy to transport you to the epoch that speaks the verse in your imagination for the ancient words as the Reina Valera in spanish .... well have a blessed day
amigo greetings from Japan -tokyo-my house
The AENT is the work of a single translator who has been accused of plagiarism.
Not a reliable text AND it comes with reams and reams of Hebrew Roots commentary that preaches mandatory Law-keeping for believers in Christ. I've also had more than desired interaction with the AENT's proofreader, and she has a well-earned reputation for being mean-spirited and vitriolic with anyone, in or out of the HRM, who disagrees with Andrew Gabriel Roth's 'translation' and commentary.
I repeat: The AENT is NOT a reliable text or Bible study resource.
-JGIG
Not a reliable text AND it comes with reams and reams of Hebrew Roots commentary that preaches mandatory Law-keeping for believers in Christ. I've also had more than desired interaction with the AENT's proofreader, and she has a well-earned reputation for being mean-spirited and vitriolic with anyone, in or out of the HRM, who disagrees with Andrew Gabriel Roth's 'translation' and commentary.
I repeat: The AENT is NOT a reliable text or Bible study resource.
-JGIG
The point is that earlier isn't better on the basis that it's earlier, whether late or early we cannot judge the manuscripts on that basis and also since there is no way to know which manuscripts were subject to more copying possibly resulting in more errors. So then taking the majority of textual witnesses is the best overall method. The evidence also is in the fact that later copies have more substance, omissions are easier to make by accident and go unnoticed than additions which have a tendency to stand out. Again there is also the witness of the early Christian writers.
I suspect that Erasmus had good reason then to place those minority readings in the margins rather than in the text. It seems quite likely to me also that Erasmus included those readings in the margins for academic purposes. 1John 5:7 is an example that, though following the majority reading is usually correct, it is not always the case. I do not defend 1John 5:7 on the basis that it is a majority reading.
And where is God's word and command recorded? Is it not in His holy scriptures? And the scriptures will continue to endure in the hearts and minds of true believers long after the printed Bibles perish with the creation. Jesus himself referred to the printed scriptures as the "word of God" in John 10:34-35.
From a purely naturalistic perspective I would agree that it would be impossible to be 100% certain of the wording of the originals, however faith bridges that supposed 2% gap. If God said he would preserve His word then He preserved his word. And I maintain that this is what He has done 100%.
No, I think it might be possible but completely unnecessary and most likely would still result in an inferior product to the KJV. Although the risk is very great in making seemingly small change that has a significant impact on the meaning of the text. I think were dealing with brilliant and godly men such as Tyndale who started the work from 1526 all the way up to the King James Bible translators (also geniuses) who worked for 7 years under the direction of the King who had the power to gather the most brilliant theological minds together (and also when your working for the King you better make sure your work is of top quality) and completed the work in 1611. So I don't believe that the work of these brilliant minds will ever be matched.
Where in 1Peter 1 did Peter say he was quoting Isaiah 40:6-7 verbatim? Why can't he allude to the passage without exactly quoting it? Peters words and the words in Isaiah are both equally the inerrant inspired words of God even though they are not exact because they are both found in the scriptures.
No drawing a circle without a single blemish doesn't mean it will last forever but God promising to preserve His unblemished word means His unblemished word will last forever. The Bible tells us that God cannot lie, that he is perfect, that God's word (the scriptures) are given by His inspiration, and that His word (the scriptures) abides forever. All these taken together means that God's preserved inerrant word must exist somewhere.
I do not deny the possibility of uncorrupted manuscripts of the scriptures existing in some language (probably in the old Latin) before the TR was put together. To say that God's word is "preserved in the totality of the manuscript tradition" without knowing for sure which ones are correct, is like saying a ship that has crashed up against the rocks is preserved amongst it's pieces. The ship is not preserved, it's wrecked. Obviously I don't believe the Vulgate is inerrant as it does not agree with the KJV or the Textus Receptus, I don't think anybody really knows what manuscripts were available at the time that Erasmus compiled the text. Perhaps all the individual manuscripts that made up the New-Testament and contained no error existed somewhere in his days and they just had not yet been compiled together into a single volume. Nevertheless Erasmus didn't necessarily have to have access to all of these to ascertain the correct reading.
I would say, majority reading and "the fathers" as you put it. Are two of the methods to help ascertain the correct reading. Also which text was in the hands of true Christians throughout the centuries, if God promised to preserve his word the proper text should be carried in the hands of his people. This approach is conducive to a KJVO position.
Again using the earliest reading is just as arbitrary since it is impossible to know which manuscripts underwent more copying, and on that basis to know which copies underwent more changes.
I'm still working that out in my mind. At this point I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Is it also possible that God does not keep His promises?
I didn't intend to imply that I thought there was a single Latin Bible. To me this is simple the Latin manuscripts that contained the variants that don't agree with the TR were wrong.
I do not agree that inerrancy "subsists" in the originals since the originals don't "subsist". But we do have what the originals said. I believe it is adequate to simply ask who were the true Christians throughout these past 2000 years and what was the text that they were using? It appears that for the majority of History true Christians were using texts that agreed with the textus receptus as the King James Bible which also is based on that text.
I think I have addressed these issues previously in this comment.
I suspect that Erasmus had good reason then to place those minority readings in the margins rather than in the text. It seems quite likely to me also that Erasmus included those readings in the margins for academic purposes. 1John 5:7 is an example that, though following the majority reading is usually correct, it is not always the case. I do not defend 1John 5:7 on the basis that it is a majority reading.
And where is God's word and command recorded? Is it not in His holy scriptures? And the scriptures will continue to endure in the hearts and minds of true believers long after the printed Bibles perish with the creation. Jesus himself referred to the printed scriptures as the "word of God" in John 10:34-35.
From a purely naturalistic perspective I would agree that it would be impossible to be 100% certain of the wording of the originals, however faith bridges that supposed 2% gap. If God said he would preserve His word then He preserved his word. And I maintain that this is what He has done 100%.
No, I think it might be possible but completely unnecessary and most likely would still result in an inferior product to the KJV. Although the risk is very great in making seemingly small change that has a significant impact on the meaning of the text. I think were dealing with brilliant and godly men such as Tyndale who started the work from 1526 all the way up to the King James Bible translators (also geniuses) who worked for 7 years under the direction of the King who had the power to gather the most brilliant theological minds together (and also when your working for the King you better make sure your work is of top quality) and completed the work in 1611. So I don't believe that the work of these brilliant minds will ever be matched.
Where in 1Peter 1 did Peter say he was quoting Isaiah 40:6-7 verbatim? Why can't he allude to the passage without exactly quoting it? Peters words and the words in Isaiah are both equally the inerrant inspired words of God even though they are not exact because they are both found in the scriptures.
No drawing a circle without a single blemish doesn't mean it will last forever but God promising to preserve His unblemished word means His unblemished word will last forever. The Bible tells us that God cannot lie, that he is perfect, that God's word (the scriptures) are given by His inspiration, and that His word (the scriptures) abides forever. All these taken together means that God's preserved inerrant word must exist somewhere.
I do not deny the possibility of uncorrupted manuscripts of the scriptures existing in some language (probably in the old Latin) before the TR was put together. To say that God's word is "preserved in the totality of the manuscript tradition" without knowing for sure which ones are correct, is like saying a ship that has crashed up against the rocks is preserved amongst it's pieces. The ship is not preserved, it's wrecked. Obviously I don't believe the Vulgate is inerrant as it does not agree with the KJV or the Textus Receptus, I don't think anybody really knows what manuscripts were available at the time that Erasmus compiled the text. Perhaps all the individual manuscripts that made up the New-Testament and contained no error existed somewhere in his days and they just had not yet been compiled together into a single volume. Nevertheless Erasmus didn't necessarily have to have access to all of these to ascertain the correct reading.
I would say, majority reading and "the fathers" as you put it. Are two of the methods to help ascertain the correct reading. Also which text was in the hands of true Christians throughout the centuries, if God promised to preserve his word the proper text should be carried in the hands of his people. This approach is conducive to a KJVO position.
Again using the earliest reading is just as arbitrary since it is impossible to know which manuscripts underwent more copying, and on that basis to know which copies underwent more changes.
I'm still working that out in my mind. At this point I'm not sure that it's necessary.
Is it also possible that God does not keep His promises?
I didn't intend to imply that I thought there was a single Latin Bible. To me this is simple the Latin manuscripts that contained the variants that don't agree with the TR were wrong.
I do not agree that inerrancy "subsists" in the originals since the originals don't "subsist". But we do have what the originals said. I believe it is adequate to simply ask who were the true Christians throughout these past 2000 years and what was the text that they were using? It appears that for the majority of History true Christians were using texts that agreed with the textus receptus as the King James Bible which also is based on that text.
I think I have addressed these issues previously in this comment.
God has preserved His written word; there are good translations of the Scriptures available, about I've written here at CC on this post, so I won't repeat that information here. I grew up reading the KJV and the NIV side by side (memorizing a bunch out of the KJV; studying mostly from the NIV) and NEVER have had a foundational doctrinal issue come up because of differences in translations. The concepts communicated are the same in each version, and in the last few years, I've also become fond of the ESV. While the concepts in reliable translations (translations done by peer-reviewed groups of reputable linguists) are consistent, some versions communicate those concepts better than others. That's not the purpose of this post, however. If you like the KJV and trust it as a valid translation, then that's the one you should use. Do so in peace and with no guff from me.
But you're missing it, Jason.
It's not in the Scriptures where God demonstrates/has demonstrated His power and provided and sustains life, but in the Living Word, Who is Christ:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (from Col. 1)
And here's a study that's definitely worth anyone's time:
---> Go through the NT and see how many times the 'word of God' is mentioned and see how many times those passages are referring NOT to the written word, the Scriptures, but to the Living Word, Christ. As an example, Hebrews 4:12 is a mind-blower, as it is a verse so often used to get people to read their Bibles or to give the written word some mystical powers of the peeling away of the heart's intents:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The word 'word' there is not the Scriptures (graphe in the Greek), but the Living Word, Who is Christ (logos in the Greek). Scripture has no power to discern thoughts and intents; Christ does. That does not AT ALL negate the reading of the Bible, but the Bible itself is not life, rather the One about Whom the Bible tells us! HE gives us revelation and insight AS we read the Scriptures He has provided for us, but life does not come from the written word, but from the Living Word.
So many in the Body of Christ throughout history have gone without and even in our times go without a Bible - they truly do rely on the Living Word, Christ, for their life, nurture, and growth.
Indeed, Christ exhorted us in John 5 (and read all of that wonderful chapter we have available to us in the Scriptures):
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
The Scriptures are a wonderful gift and tool that God has provided for us - a written record of history, encouragement, exhortation, and doctrine to help us in our walks.
But we must be very careful to not make an idol of our beloved Bibles (and I do cherish my Bible - its worn cover and pages testify!), for it is not in the written word where we get LIFE, but from our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, the FULL representation of our Father.
Christ, the Living Word, the One Who made possible the gifts of forgiveness, righteousness, and LIFE through His Works of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and His Perfect, Permanent High Priesthood - HE is the One Who provides us with Life!
The Bible provides us with none of that; it points to the One Who did.
Lift up HIM.
Go to HIM first for nourishment, using the Bible as a utensil, not as the meal.
Defend HIM.
Share HIS Works.
Proclaim the Truths, the Good News, the Gospel, about HIM.
-JGIG