Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[CabinetMaker]

Cabinetmaker, I thought my posts were very clear.

I closed out with you when you showed yourself to be a railng accuser. You were also incapable of logical discussion, that did not help either, and was related. However your insistence on false accusations of bald-faced liar made you of no integrity and no import on the forum.

And you could never be "proved wrong" to your satisfaction because you are bound by your illogic, a place where spiritual principalities come to play.

Shalom,
Steven

Translation - Steven Avery cannot address the points CabinetMaker has raised so Steven will complain about being called a liar to avoid the issue in the hopes of distracting other views of this thread from the fact that Steven does not answer questions.

 

[Steven Avery]

Translation - Steven Avery cannot address the points CabinetMaker has raised so Steven will complain about being called a liar to avoid the issue in the hopes of distracting other views of this thread from the fact that Steven does not answer questions.

True Translation.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[CabinetMaker]

True Translation.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven

I await a demonstration of your integrity, sir.

 

[themuzicman]

Does anyone know why Muz quoted 2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV to prove that the church was in charge of preserving the scriptures?

I quoted that to show that the bible DOES say tht the originals were at least inspired, and I think we can make a case for inerrant.

You can't say taht for the KJV.

Muz

 

[Steven Avery]

John 1:18 and the Arian usages

John 1:18 and the Arian usages

Hi bereancam,

Reasonable question. Thanks. This question of early usages is something I looked into a while back and discussed with Tim Warner, who has the most voluminous information at:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/false_teachings_of_arius.htm
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18 - Tim Warner

Notice the Nicene Creed compared to the Arian Creed. btw, Tim did miss some references on both sides, such as the only-begotten-Son references in the Apostolic Constitutions, and the mixed referencing from Athanasius and Cyril and he didn't discuss later references like the Council of Chalcedon. However overall his article is the single best.

The first key issue is the Bible, John 3:16 and other verses.

Psalm 2:7
I will declare the decree:
the LORD hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,
in that he hath raised up Jesus again;
as it is also written in the second psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Hebrews 5:5
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son,
to day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:
and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him.

Only begotten God, unless you claim the minority reading of John 1:18, is totally absent from the Bible. While only begotten Son is pure and true Bible, consistently, fluidly, beautifully. So how anybody can know to know the word of God and accuse against John 1:18 above in the King James Bible is very strange. I think perhaps you would grant that, Bereancam but now want to study whether "only begotten God" is also potentially proper Bible usage and whether it was in fact an aspect of the early 3rd-century Arian usages. Which is fair enough and something I always appreciate learning more about as well.

The next issue is the early church writers and the Arian controversies of the 3rd century. There is material on this from Dean John Burgon, Tischendorf and others. After that maybe we can get into the fifth century writers and creeds and also the Reformation view, if desired. However right now I will be heading to work, and all of this takes a spot of time to research, think, study and writer properly.

As for you question about discussing Bible verses, we have excellent edifying discussions on the WhichVersion forum, (There is also a web-forum AV1611 which would probably be very interested in these questions, at least about John 1:18.) I do not think such discussions are able to go far here on Theology-Online, where Mormons and skeptics and railing false accusers hijack the discussion and there is essentially no integrity moderation. I have left this venue before, for those types of reasons, and now that the debate is over, I only plan to tie up loose ends from this debate and move on. However the loose ends could include more on our discussion here on John 1:18. Probably more on Warfield's pseudo-inerrancy. Maybe a final review of the debate. Anyway, I appreciate that this time you brought something of substance to the floor. Such has been almost non-existent here.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

I await a demonstration of your integrity, sir.

Sure. That has been done by cutting off our non-productive discussion on Bible issues.

A question to you.

If I was, as you claim, a bald-faced liar why would you continue to have questions for me ? Why would care one whit what I have to share about the Bible or any other ?

I know for sure I do not bother to engage liars and railing false accusers on email forums. I simply dust off my feet. I leave. Or I discuss with the gentlemen and those of sound mind.

What do you hope to accomplish by having more discussion ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I quoted that to show that the bible DOES say tht the originals were at least inspired, and I think we can make a case for inerrant.

You can't say taht for the KJV.

Muz

Why not?

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Hi all. Steve, you are right on with the phony claims of Muz regarding the Westcott-Hort textual stuff. He can in no way list even one major shift away from the WH texts, let alone 10 very minor ones. The lastest UBS texts even come out and tell us (Metzger) that they take the WH text as their starting point and textual basis.

By the way, I have not given up on the debate. I should be posting either tonight or Saturday at the latest, Lord willing.

Thanks Steven for the excellent posts you are making in defense of the Book.

Will K

Hi Folks,

So far we received so far one response here about the debate discussion on John 1:18. Apparently this is difficult for the others here in the peanut gallery, where many prefer rah-rah politics to substance. Interesting to note, superficial treatment seems to be the common stance when there is no pure Bible as a plumbline. Let's examine another case, from the Will Kinney-themuzicman discussion.

========================================================

We were given a very dubious and false comment made by the muzicman in response to many quotes from Will Kinney about the Westcott and Hort alexandrian text and Will's simple and clear summary. (Quotes worth rereading, but outside the scope of my post here.) The muzicman took a dismissive and appalling position, one however that is a fairly common false teaching, confusion and deception. Muzicman actually attempted to radically distance himself from Westcott-Hort while still embracing the modern versions and attacking the King James Bible (even on John 1:18 !)

Will Kinney accurately stated:
"The new versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard all reject the Traditional Greek Text, and instead rely primarily on two very corrupt Greek manuscripts called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These so called "oldest and best" manuscripts also form the basis of all Catholic versions as well as the Jehovah Witness version."

Actually, to be fair, Will's statement does needs a tweak, as the earlier Vulgate RCC versions had a related but distinct lineage. The earlier Vulgate text is not anywhere near as corrupt as the modern version texts and textcrits, who e.g. falsely claim that the Pericope Adultera and the ending of Mark are not God's word but are the corrupting hand of man. However today the RCC has embraced heartily the modern version Westcott-Hort counter-reformation text. (Their inconsistency is noted, but not surprising, the text they always reject, even up to the Index of Forbidden Books, is the Reformation Textus Receptus which is the Reformation Bible and the King James Bible being the majestic and pure English Received Text.)

The muzicman responded by trying to distance himself from Westcott-Hort.

themuzicman :
"This is simply incorrect. With respect to the Westcott and Hort New Testament, this may have been true. However, their textual selection has been rejected for almost 100 years now, based upon recent findings of older texts in various discoveries around the world since 1900. Modern scholars value the Byzantine text far more than Westcott and Hort did, and your modern translations are based upon a far more balanced (and accurate) view of all the texts."

It is trivial for any researcher to see how nonsensical is this assertion that the current modern version text is a rejection of Westcott and Hort and a significant movement toward the Byzantine text. And that there has been wholesale rejection and abandonment of any of their claims based on modern texts.

to themuzicman:
Name precisely which significant W-H alexandrian readings were rejected 100 years ago or 10 years ago or 1 year ago ?? And indicate what MSS caused the rejections from Aleph and B to a more Byzantine/Majority/Traditional text reading ?? Why not give us some, how about even a dozen ??

Verses and MSS, please.

To the readers: Simply go to the hundreds of W-H changes from the historic Bible: Ask themuzicman for the list of "rejected" W-H readings that are now balanced and more Byzantine and examine the list, if you ever get one. Research the supposed rejections and also compare any offered to the major issue of hundreds of verses that were omitted or corrupted from the historic Traditional Text by Westcott-Hort.

Here are many Westcott-Hort corruptions.
How many have been since rejected by the anti-pure-TR-pure-KJB crew ?

1 Timothy 3:16 - ("God was manifest in the flesh" in TR/KJB)
John 1:18 - ("begotten God" in W-H)
Acts 8:37 - (baptism testimony omitted in W-H)
Ending of Mark - (resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus claimed to be man's addition)
Pericope Adultera - (powerful Johannine section claimed to man's addition to Gods word)
Johannine Comma - (heavenly witnesses)
Mark 5:1 Luke 8:26 8:37 - Gerasa, the swine marathon in W-H
John 7:8 - "not yet" go to the feast (Jesus as liar in mvs)
Mark 1:2 - prophets vs Isaiah (prophecy error)
Matthew 1:7 - Asa vs Asaphe (wrong person)
Luke 4:44 - Galilee vs Judea (wrong geography location)
Luke 23:45 - eclipsed vs darkened (scientific error)
Matthew 5:22 - omission of "without a cause"
John 5:2 - Bethzatha vs Bethesda (archaeologically supported)
John 1:28 - Bethabara vs Bethany beyond the Jordan (archaeological evidence)
Hebrews 9:4 - golden censer vs altar of incense (OT contradiction)
etc

For an additional list you could work with take the Magic Marker page of Brandon Staggs, and its 180 variants. Although many more variants could be added.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages?

And I could share much more that relates to the issues in the misleading and absurd and false representation of themusicman on this topic. Study the Hort theory of primitive corruptions that could be in zero MSS, the corruptions in the alexandrian texts that are so gross and perverse that they do not make the apparatus or the modern versions (e.g. Nazareth in Judea), the corruptions in the Westcott-Hort text that are deliberately mistranslated in most modern versions such as 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:18. The underlying conceptual base, the false and now oft-rejected Hortian Lucian-recension theory that is at the heart of the modern version historical deception. And the attempt to create in the textcrit sandbox a couple of new corruptions in the text in verses like 2 Peter 3:10 (where the modern versionist textcrits now even have two opposite competing corruptions) and Jesus being angry instead of having compassion in Mark 1:41, a Bart Ehrman speciality.

However I think it is proper to simply stop here for now. The details of all the errors in the modern version texts can deflect us from exposing the overall textual apostasy of the Westcott-Hort text. An apostasy which is still embraced today by themuzicman despite his flawed and failed attempt to distance himself from the hundreds of Westcott-Hort corruptions.

themuzicman.. please .. time to be honest with the forum ... please list all these major Westcott-Hort corruptions that modern textcrits and modern versions and you now reject in favor of Byzantine supported readings.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

I quoted that to show that the bible DOES say tht the originals were at least inspired, and I think we can make a case for inerrant.

Hi Muz.

Greetings.
Little question for you on this.

Was the inspired text of the Tanach preserved to the day of the Lord Jesus Christ ? When Jesus and Timothy and Paul read the Tanach scriptures were they by that time errant and uninspired, as inspiration and inerrancy had only been in the 'original autographs' ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[themuzicman]

Hi SaulToPaul, I was puzzled by that as well.

Along with auxiliary questions as to what is the church that is doing the preserving, per muzicman. The RCC ? JW ? The Reformation ? The Byzantine Orthodox ? The Syriac Orthodox ? Various combinations ?

Conceivably it could be related to his aggressive position for the Arian reading of John 1:18. This section on 2 Peter was an area I would have liked to examine from his posts (along with a few others) however like a lot of his writing it is "fuzzy". And I only have had the time and energy so far to emphasize two things:

1) John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" vs his Arian corruption

2) major blunder on Westcott-Hort where muzicman tried to distance himself from their text with a false assertion of radical textual changes towards the Byzantine after their text was published

Please feel free to discuss 2 Peter more, what you might think muzicman was claiming, one of the problems in this type of format is that with the limited number of posts it is easy for somebody to say something strange (like the section you mentioned) or totally erroneous (like the Westcott-Hort distancing fiasco) and then slip-slide around it until the discussion session is over.

At least on John 1:18, the situation is clear. themuzicman took an absurd position, falsely claiming all the translations had only-begotten-God, and he strangely attacked the historically-agreed and accepted and affirmed and loved "only begotten Son" phrasing as somehow non-scriptural .. and then moved on. There is not much more to say, except to puzzle if he even knows and understands he is aggressively defending an Arian/JW interpretation (that is in fact from only a very minority corruption). We can't expect him to say much more, since his foot, on John 1:18, is already firmly planted in his mouth. What is a puzzle is WHY somebody would take that verse and translation as an attack on the King James Bible, unless they were oriented towards the NWT and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not like there are many evangelicals who support "only-begotten-God" doctrinally (that is why even the modern versions fudge their translation away from a literal translation of the minority corruption that they have to work with because they are still textual clones of Westcott-Hort). And it is not like "only-begotten-God" really has anything like the historical and textual and early church writer support of the majority Received Text reading.

John 1:18 (KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

So the puzzle is why ?

The theological concept of the begotten Son is fine, because of John 3:16. Calling Christ the "only begotten God" is hardly Arian. In fact, it's quite the opposite and is inherently trinitarian, given it's match with John 1:1. Arias said that Jesus was NOT God.

The point is that the KJV doesn't reflect the original, and thus is corrupt.

Anyway, on the sure word of prophecy, if you have a conjecture, or an analysis, please share away.

"Men wrote, as the Holy Spirit carried them along." The whole passage is about Peter providing the church a means of protecting themselves against false teachers, and when he gives them is the writings of the disciples who saw Christ, and the OT prophets.

=============================================

I also found other areas of great puzzlement, such as muzicman's very strange 400 AD theory of cross-language cross-region international textual coalescing. The muzicman recension. That was a doozy and could take hours to unravel, even if muzicman were responsive and accountable. Apparently he does not realize that all the pre-vellum MSS (c. his 400 AD date) would deteriorate and wear out from usage, with the exception being those stored away in desert climates and/or usage fully ended. If muzicman simply read Professor Maurice Robinson he would not be so confused about the MSS history and come up with fabricated nonsense theories like he did in the 400 AD section.

It's not just the Vellum. All the text types seems to source very closely together around 400AD. What happened isn't exactly clear,but given the pattern of development for the text types, it is clear that come kind of mass coalescence occurred at that time.

And the claims on the Leningrad Codex "considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church." By who ? Apparently Muzicman does not even realize that BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) which is often used for translations is not the Leningrad codex and that they differ in various ways and that there are many scribal errors in the Leningrad Codex. He talks about a piece of a Torah Scroll, which is a fine study, but not representative of the Tanach as Penteteuch copying was done on a far higher level than the rest of the Tanach.

Read the BHS. It's sourced on the Leningrad Codex. The LC is the oldest complete manuscript of the OT. Do some reading on OT text crit.

And textcrits and the versions that he would support often deviate from the
Masoretic text, taking readings from the Greek OT or the DSS or here and there. As another example of textcrit difficulty, Emanuel Tov proposed redoing the Tanach to include those sources and other sources like the Vulgate and the Peshitta and Targumim.

The Leningrad text IS the MT. It comes from the ben Asher scribal dynasty.

However, it is true that the level of difficulty in the Tanach is very low compared to what is caused by a few aberrant NT MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Bezae. And the textcrits have not been successful in contaminating the text to anything like the extent of the NT Westcott-Hort fiasco. So our emphasis on the forum should properly remain the NT.

That is where most of the text crit emphasis is, given the state of each Testament.

=============================

And muzicman's mush views on inerrancy (actually attacking the Lord Jesus as errant on the mustard seed ! .. amazing) and inspiration and preservation. His presentation deteriorated as the discussion went on, and he gave up any pretense of remotely trying to present a coherent position about the identity and perfection of the Bible text. The only thing that seems to matter to him is that God could not have his word in the tangible, readable form, especially not in the King James Bible, God's word must be subject to confusion and changing scholarship and conflicting texts with errant readings.

Then you missed the point. The point wasn't that Jesus spoke in error. The point was that if we're going to apply inerrancy to that level, then Kinney has to admit that Jesus spoke in error, too. Inerrancy isn't about every little detail. Whether a mustard seed is smallest isn't the point of Jesus' teaching, and neither is 22 or 42 years old in the Chronicals/King passage.

Here is some of my notes from the 2 Peter area from Muzicman

"My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us. the original text is the only text that we can say was created "as the Holy Spirit carried them along." (2 Peter 1:16-21) ... The bible does tell us that the original writing in inspired by God."

Somehow he was also claiming that this teaches corruption, not preservation, after original inspiration. Very strange.

No, I'm saying that there isn't a promise of inerrancy after this point.

That would mean that the "Scripture" read by Jesus and Timothy and Paul was not fully pure and perfect, and that Jesus was overstating, as some scripture would have been frayed and broken.

It appears that the 22/42 error happened before the time of Christ. What would you conclude?

(BTW, Paul was quite enamored with using the LXX for citations. Not that he uses it all the time, but it is frequent. Are you saying that the LXX is inerrant?)

Remember that the point of the debate is to ask whether the KJV is inerrant. It's clear from our debate that it is not. I've made a concerted effort NOT to get into a comparison match, whether between translations, manuscripts, or doctrine of preservation. Kinney's job was to prove it without that foil. He hasn't done so.

Muz

 

[brandplucked]

God's Book

God's Book

Why not?

Hi SaultoPaul, Didn't you know that Muz has his own personalized copy of the originals right there on his desk and is comparing them to the KJB right now?

Will K

 

[Steven Avery]

...By the way, I have not given up on the debate. I should be posting either tonight or Saturday at the latest, Lord willing. Thanks Steven for the excellent posts you are making in defense of the Book.Will K

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Will. Glad to hear the discussion is continuing, I had picked up on a contrary report here and I am glad that reports of the end of the thread were greatly exaggerated. Even if you two slow it down some, I hope you will continue at least through the weekend, maybe into next week. Maybe muz and yourself can really hash out particular issues in a neat fashion as the days go by. Work together to change the flow of discussion, do some point-to-point, whatever is possible to edify you two and the readers.

This forum, for all its difficulties, has had many excellent points. It was even a factor in a decision I made not to run to a puter conference in Toronto for a day or two, I really felt that the Lord Jesus desired to help many of us through the discussions here. (Well, there were many other factors too )

May the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you today.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[CabinetMaker]

Sure. That has been done by cutting off our non-productive discussion on Bible issues.

If you can't or don't want to answer my questions to you, then say so. Otherwise, why won't you answer them?

A question to you.

If I was, as you claim, a bald-faced liar why would you continue to have questions for me ? Why would care one whit what I have to share about the Bible or any other ?

I know for sure I do not bother to engage liars and railing false accusers on email forums. I simply dust off my feet. I leave.

It is an attempt to get you to examine the claims you make using the terms as you define them. You utterly ignore anything that challenges your position.

By the way, you did plainly misrepresent my position that had just been clearly stated.

Or I discuss with the gentlemen and those of sound mind.

My mind is perfectly sound and it is my opinion that that is the reason you will not deal with me. At some level you begin to see the shifting sand you claims are built on.

What do you hope to accomplish by having more discussion ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

One of two things should happen. One, you will present irrefutable evidence that you are right about the KJV and I, along with a great many others, will gladly and joyfully accept your position. Two, you will honestly examine your position and learn that it is based on an assumption that cannot be proven with enough certainty to allow you to claim the KJV as 100% inerrant (note that I an not contesting the inspiration of the KJV). At this point you would gladly and joyfully cease to claim that all other translations are wrong.

In no case do I expect you to quite using the KJV. It is a wholly inspired translation, as are the others, and should be used by those believers who love that translation.

The only thing at issue is the authority by which you claim the KJV is God's chosen translation. You mus substantiate that claim or abandon it.

Of course there is a third alternative. You can put me on ignore and just ignore any argument I might challenge you with. The choice is yours.

 

[Steven Avery]

the assertion unexamined

the assertion unexamined

Hi all. Steve, you are right on with the phony claims of Muz regarding the Westcott-Hort textual stuff. He can in no way list even one major shift away from the WH texts, let alone 10 very minor ones.

Amen. However muz might be able to find a couple of minor ones, based on the papyri segments that were discovered, although likely only in verses where Vaticanus and Sinaticus were already split. And even on the couple of minor variants he will still find no consensus against a Westcott-Hort reading. Muz could find a consensus against Hort's "primitive corruptions" however I do not think those ever made either the W-H text or the modern versions.

You can fool with some of the verses all of the time, and all of the verses some of the times, but even the alexandrian cornfuseniks can't fool with all the verses all of the time.

Anyway, I do hope muz will address his attempt to distance himself, to run away from, the Westcott-Hort text. Apparently in seminary classes at times 'teach' the assertion unexamined.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hi SaultoPaul, Didn't you know that Muz has his own personalized copy of the originals right there on his desk and is comparing them to the KJB right now?

Will K

Well, his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek will certainly help him
plow through those originals. :chuckle:

 

[Steven Avery]

If you can't or don't want to answer my questions to you, then say so. Otherwise, why won't you answer them?.

Once I realized you were a false railing accuser (twice, so it wasn't simply a slip) I did not even look at you "questions to you".

Cabinetmaker, I do not know what they are, nor do I care. I just wanted you to be clear about why I am not concerned with your questions, and why we have no dialog on Bible issues.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Well, his extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek will certainly help him plow through those originals. :chuckle:

but... what if the originals are in other languages. e.g. What if Mark was in Latin or Graeco-Latin ? Is he also skilled there ?

btw, if the "originals" appeared tomorrow, or claimed to appear, how would anyone know if they were the originals ? What would be the plumbline ?

Shalom,
Steven

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

btw, if the "originals" appeared tomorrow, or claimed to appear, how would anyone know if they were the originals ? What would be the plumbline ?

Shalom,
Steven [/COLOR]

the King James Bible! :first:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Once I realized you were a false railing accuser (twice, so it wasn't simply a slip) I did not even look at you "questions to you".

Cabinetmaker, I do not know what they are, nor do I care. I just wanted you to be clear about why I am not concerned with your questions, and why we have no dialog on Bible issues.

Shalom,
Steven

Forgive me an observation, but you come across as more of a coward than a noble servant kicking the dirt of a heathen from your sandals.

 

[CabinetMaker]

the King James Bible! :first:

Based on what? What authority does the KJV have to be used as the standard against which all other texts are judged.