Westcott and Hort justified their correction of the KJV with the Sinaiticus. What is your basis for finding fault with the KJV Bible?
The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Westcott and Hort justified their correction of the KJV with the Sinaiticus. What is your basis for finding fault with the KJV Bible?
Unlike Kinney, I do not promote the idea that the KJV is the only inspired translation available tody but that it is the best translation today and that it contains no significant errors. I agree with Kinney's description of a typical argument against faith in the KJV as the inerrant word of God.
This is the typical and ultimately meaningless mantra of “only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.” Everybody believes the originals WERE inspired and inerrant. But that leaves us with no inerrant Bible now.
Bob's first response was to look at various editions of the KJV as well as the characters of translators and evidence from authorities who do not share the belief that God has preserved His infallible word in any translation today. If we were to believe that every manuscript and translation is fallible then there would be no perfect basis for irrefutably finding fault with any of them.
I agree with Will Duffy that it is wrong to cay the KJV translators were inspired to compose the KJV. I do not agree with those who believe the KJV is some sort of new inspired word of God that replaces all other translations, including the no longer existing original manuscripts. I take issue with Will Duffy in opposition to that position held by some or many KJV-only subscribers.
“I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible… [bracketed KJV on Kinney’s page]
This next quote appears in the same article, with Kinney’s site showing this in all caps and bold, that:
“IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL.”
Will Duffy asked this question:
BWQ16: Do you deny that there were at least 400 textual differences between the “He” 1611 and the “She” 1611?
My position is that changes in word meanings over the years, printing errors, archaic phrases and the like do nothing to alter the fact that God has preserved His inerrant word for His people today. I agree with Dean Burgon and Will Kenney. who wrote this:
The Character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Texts
www.ecclesia.org
Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that they are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one another. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substitued, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two mss. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
Bob Enyart asked this:
Evaluating whether or not we have God’s true words takes effort. It does not just fall in your lap. For example, when looking at the chart above containing the differences between the Cambridge editions of the King James Bible, examining the context of the verse, the overall plot of the Bible and the Hebrew/Greek manuscript evidence helps one determine which edition is correct and which one is in error.
The dilemma is this. If the KJV cannot be trusted to be infallible then what infallible source from God can we rely upon to correct it? The Sinaiticus? The Vaticanus? The Revised Version? The Dead Sea Scrolls? No, we have nothing if we assume there is no inspired writing from God today.
Again, naar is used. Therefore it CANNOT mean "little children."
Thus, it likely is presenting the youn men in a negative light. And why shouldn't it? They are insulting a prophet of God, and even God Himself.
I would think that it's similar to how Jesus used the diminutive form of dog when speaking to the gentile woman.
The fact that it contains errors and inconsistencies that you refuse to acknowledge.
Look, I'm not trying to say that the KJV is a bad Bible. I'm simply saying that we as Christians should acknowledge that it, like any other Bible, contains errors that have crept in via translation work that was done by fallible humans and through loss of information due to time.
Minor inconsistencies such as this one do not affect the overall message of the Bible, marke. THAT is what is important.
Why do we need an "infallible source" from God? Do you think God is not capable of preserving His message using fallible humans?
We have internal consistency.
Marke, has the overall message of the Bible changed in the past 2000 years? I guarantee you that it has not. If something does not fit with that message, then we know that a mistake has been made.
I point to the Wicked Bible as an example. It said "thou shalt commit adultery." People instantly knew upon reading it that it was in error, simply because it is NOT consistent with the rest of the Bible, let alone the fact that humans inherently know, through the law written on our hearts, that adultery is wrong.
The reason we can rely on the Bible, even if it isn't inerrant, is because it IS, in fact, God's word, and God is fully capable of writing a book that can survive a few translation errors and minor inconsistencies.
Any more discussion on this topic needs to be moved to a new thread.
Nope. That would be unjust. Adam's nature changed as a result of his rebellion and we are living with that consequence but the alternative is for God to end the human race altogether and all hope for redemption along with it. You DO NOT get sick, injured, die or otherwise suffer because God is upstairs smiting your flesh in retribution for Adam's sin.
This is an argument from silence and it is a fallacy for good reason.
The bible doesn't define death as I have explicitly but it doesn't define death in any explicit way at all, nor is it necessary for it to be so explicitly defined. It isn't hard to look at the biblical record and understand that it is when one's spirit separates from their body that they are physically dead and that spiritual death is a separation from God. Jesus died in both ways....
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.
All of doctrine is an extrapolation from scripture!
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 3:23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
No!
I AM identified RIGHT NOW in Christ. I am - RIGHT NOW - blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ and made fully accepted in the Beloved. For I, through the law, died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified (PAST TENSE) with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (Ephesians 1 & Galatians 2)
Yeah, you're definitely incorrect here. You have to remain on the same page that Paul is on here.
Paul was alive without the law because where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). It wasn't until he understood "Thou shalt not covet" that the sin of coveting would have ever been attributed to him and thereby killed him (spiritually). And, the "revival of sin" is a figure of speech because its not as if Paul (or anyone) was born without a sin nature. It's not that wrong doing was absent, it was that it wasn't being accounted against him prior to the age of accountability by virtue of Christ's work at Calvary. It is only a man's own sin that God holds against him. That's what Romans 5 is all about!
Romans 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have NOW received the reconciliation.
How could anyone ever convince you of anything? You never engaged beyond what you can type in a single sentence or copy/paste from someone else's work.
Qatan naar does not mean "young men," it means "very young men."
If I quote Dean Burgon or you quote Bob Enyart, what kind of quotes are inadmissible?
Right Divider
Body part
How young? Very young MEN? What is the youngest that a MAN can be?
Really young.
Genesis 17:10
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Right Divider
Body part
They were old enough to talk and to "gang up". That means that they were not infants.
Perfect example of your typical post.
You take a comment about YOUR lack of engagement and deflect it. I wasn't suggesting that quoting someone was a problem and you knew that when you wrote this stupidity!
You're a lazy waste of bandwidth. What in the world you get out of being here, I'll never understand.
That's right. They were old enough to get their bottom spanked or the daylights knocked out of them by their dads' fists.
I am not here to try to persuade anyone who is not open to correction, instruction, edification, or encouragement.
You couldn't persuade anyone of anything! You DO NOT engage the discussion! You do drive by posts that are typically, exactly one sentence long!
Derf
Well-known member
Didn't the Levites pay tithes to Melchizedek in Abraham? Didn't the offspring of DAVID become kings because David was king--they sat on their father David's throne? Weren't Saul's sons disrnthroned because of Saul's sons? Didn't David's first son with Bathsheba die SPECIFICALLY because of David's sin (almost as if God smite his flesh in retribution for David's sin)? Both good and bad happen to the children often because of what the father does, including God's judgment.
Yet God is not unjust in any of these things. Death came to all men because of Adam's sin, even those who did not sin in the same way. And here's my extrapolation: even infants die, way before they are able to commit any sin, because of Adam's sin. Do you agree?
Therefore it is an act of mercy when God says the son will not bear the guilt of the father.
Ezekiel 18:19 KJV — Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
2 verse's later we're told:
Ezekiel 18:21 KJV — But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
The same mercy shown to the wicked who repeats is shown to the son who does not follow in the ways of his wicked father. Yet we all die because Adam sinned.
Romans 5:12 KJV — Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Hebrews explains that last phrase:
Hebrews 2:15 KJV — And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Yet when you wrote (below) that "death is separation", you did so because you felt it necessary to define death explicitly.
Of course this is confirmation bias, as it nowhere says He died spiritually in there.
Here's what it says later in the chapter:
Psalm 22:24 KJV — For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
Not all. The clearer stuff is explanation of scripture. I'm not saying we never want to extrapolate, but when we do, we should note that those doctrines are less important, they are something we can agree not to divide over.
You left out the part you don't seem to want to acknowledge. You know...where God defined death, twice just to make sure we get His meaning:
Genesis 3:19 KJV — In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
This those that lived between Adam and Moses shouldn't have died, except
I thought you said this was unjust.
Unjust!
Why were they made sinners? Heb 2:15.
Just like you were chosen in Christ before the world began. Just like you were saved and called to His own purpose before the world began, just like you had a promise of eternal life before the world began...in Christ.
E.g. 2 Timothy 1:9 KJV — Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
But not everything "in Christ" is currently a fact:
Ephesians 1:10 KJV — That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Because Christ's sacrifice is going to allow you to be resurrected--and you can trust that it will be so. So even though YOU are living currently, it is accounted into to you that Christ lives in you.
By faith, meaning that you are looking forward to something that hasn't happened yet (resurrection), as shown by something that HAS already happened (Christ's resurrection).
Same as those who lived between Adam and Moses. The law never came to them. I'm not opposed to your usage, but I think those who haven't heard the gospel might have a leg to stand on from that verse, including those who lived before Moses.
Sure, but we should discuss what a sin nature is and how it works.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure 20 years old is the right dividing line, even for Jews, a la the 42 youths and Elisha, as JR was talking of.
That was my earlier point--we were (past tense) reconciled through His death probably referring to the time of His death, but we SHALL BE (future tense) saved by His life. Salvation is still future, but we can act like it is already accomplished, as evidenced by His resurrection. That is why we have hope, because something that we see (already possess) we don't have to hope for. And that's what our faith is about--something in the future:
Hebrews 11:1 KJV — Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Romans 8:24-25 KJV — For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Things we are waiting for:
Adoption--Romans 8:23 KJV — And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption,...
And redemption of our bodies--Rom 8:23 cont. ...to wit, the redemption of our body.
Confirmation of our blamelessness--
1 Corinthians 1:7-8 KJV — So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Imputation of righteousness --
Romans 4:21-24 KJV — And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Our inheritance --
Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV — In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance... Redemption again -- Eph 1:14 cont. ...until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
These things all look forward to our bodily resurrection, i.e., the resurrection of our bodies is equated with redemption, adoption, etc.
Last edited:
The Bible does not say the baby died because of David's sin.
All men are born sinners and commit sins from the moment of their birth. But Jesus atoned for all sins but one, which is rejecting the truth after having been enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
Psalm 58:3
The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
If you're willing to live with this kind of blatant contradiction and worship a God that does unjust things, whether you give His justice lip service or not, then there isn't any point in discussing this any further with you because you worship a god that you've made up and that does not exist. If this sort of contradiction can exist in your doctrine, what sort of contradiction isn't permitted? No rational discussion is possible when one party permits contradictions to be accepted as truth.
Besides, the notion that God holds a man responsible for the sins of his father is so repugnant to the actual God that does exist, that He had a whole chapter of the bible written specifically to squash that completely insulting idea.
Here's the whole chapter in a nutshell...
"The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
Go ahead and read all of it and see if it doesn't directly contradict your doctrine.
Let me know if it persuades you. When that happens, we can continue our discussion.
Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.
10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
Derf
Well-known member
2 Samuel 12:13-14 KJV — And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
Do you see something different?
Really? From the moment of birth? Can you give an example that a suckling baby, a minute old, commits? I agree the sins seem to start early. If that early, might they also sin in the womb?
I agree.
Ps 58:3 specifically says "the wicked", and contrasts with "the righteous" later in the psalm.
Let me just say it is unscriptural to claim the son shall bear the iniquity of the father as some imagine David's son did.
I recommend people do not try to interpret the Bible in such a way that contradicts what the Bible says. If God says the wicked begin lying as soon as they emerge from the womb then I am just 'gullible' enough to believe God.
Marke is a fool. Ignore anything he says about babies sinning from the moment of their birth. He believes his doctrine, not the bible.