Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[Steven Avery]

modern textual critics are 'certain' about ...

modern textual critics are 'certain' about ...

Hi Folks,

Apparently muzicman made this strange claim, and never even stated the 13 places :

"Well, if you'd take a moment to look at textual criticism with an unbiased eye, you'd find that there are thirteen (yes, 13) places where textual critics are unsure of the original reading (for the NT), and of those, none are significant to doctrine."

Now I actually read and participate in the textual criticism forums, and the true answer would be that there is no surety in modern scientific textual criticism at all. Everything is grades ... A, B, C, D, E .. and the whole modern science trapped in false paradigms gets an F. If you were going to count their unsure variants, it would be at least hundreds. You can simply take a work like the textual criticism sections of Wieland Willker and see there are hundreds of uncertainties, even from their alexandrian text position.

However the true number is even much greater. Muzicman thinks there is no scholarly debate on these issues where an Alexandrian-supported reading clashes with the Majority/Byzantine reading (often supported by early church writers, Old Latin and more). Muzicman could simply look at the Majority Text discussion even within textual criticism circles and see that virtually ever single variant is 'unsure' just in that limited debate... note e.g the public debates on the Pericope Adultera and the Ending of Mark.

Here is a little question for muzicman, since he claims that the Byzantine texts have added hundreds of words, phrases, verses and sections.

Muzicman, since you are certain of the modern textual criticism and they teach you that the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark (the last 12 verses) and the Pericope Adultera are the corruption of man and not God's word, do you keep those 'corruptions' in your versions ? Or do you recommend that those 20+ verses should be (snipped) out, blotted out, and that Mark should end only with the women afraid and not the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ ?

Is it really your view that every modern version that includes those two sections has erred ? And the only proper action of a true Bible believer is to (snip) or (blot) out those words that you say you are sure are from men and not God ? And thus there is no good representation of God's word anywhere today available in English ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

PS
The earlier discussions about Warfield and inerrancy and John 1:18 and gnosticism might be nice to continue, preferably in a venue where the focus could go a bit deeper. We succeed quite well on WhichVersion on that type of back and forth. Any posting here would most nicely address the paradigmic and verse issues about the purity and perfection of the Bible as a whole, its identity, and particular verses and sections..

 

[Steven Avery]

textcrits (snipping) the resurrection account of Mark

textcrits (snipping) the resurrection account of Mark

Hi Folks,

I realize for my post above a little more context would be helpful. On one post muzicman actually did express his view, dropping his guard, as to what text would be God's pure word. And this true text would not include Byzantine/Majority readings that are contradicted by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, including the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera (I tend to doubt they could be in his "List of 13"). From post 281 on the thread:

What I mean is that there are 13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion as to the correct reading..... the KJV has a lot of extra stuff that scribes have added over the years. That's the major fault of the Byzantine Text Type.

For those who are not familiar, the "scholars" to whom muz refers declare that Mark's ending is one of those additions.

(The overwhelming evidences in Greek Majority and even Western texts, Old Latin, Latin, Syriac and other languages, and many early church writers, are trumped, by their strange way of thinking, by a few corrupt MSS that are from what Westcott and Hort call their "neutral" text. Those interested in the evidences, it is a fascinating study.)

Thus muzicman, unless he disagrees radically with the same scholarship to which he appeals, has singlehandedly declared basically every English Bible version you buy in the shambles is corrupt, as they all (from Tyndale and Geneva and the King James Bible to the hundreds of modern versions) include these sections in their text.

So I am wondering above how muz thinks this should be handled ? Is he concerned about the purity of the Bible, does he desire that you should all blot out the resurrection account of Mark from your (from his perspective) corrupt versions ? Does muzicman desire to make his own "pure" English Bible that will fit his declaration of textual accuracy above, one that purges out any Byzantine readings that do not have Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agreement ?

Basically, if muzicman is so sure that the King James Bible is just another translation, there is a question to answer : translation of what ? Surely not the text that muzicman wants to give you, the counter-reformation text of Westcott and Hort, for which there is no English Bible available anywhere in the world. A 'Bible' of sorts with the resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ given by Mark (snipped) out.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think muz has a copy of the Muzicanus text on his desk...it's the inerrant one which doesn't include the Mark verses.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I think muz has a copy of the Muzicanus text on his desk...it's the inerrant one which doesn't include the Mark verses.

 

[brandplucked]

The ESV is wrong in many ways

The ESV is wrong in many ways

Afternoon folks,


Since Mr. R suggested the ESV as a point of discussion & dialogue:
As a student for the Word of God, here's a verse that jumps out as to what I would objectively consider a more appropriate issue of translation that is questionable.

ESV:
Jude 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
KJV:
Jude 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Just another proof that the ESV is a fake bible. Back in the days spoken of when the LORD brought the people out of the land of Egypt, there was no Jesus. He had not yet been incarnated. His human name is Jesus. "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:20-21.

The Lord Jesus Christ is never referred to as Jesus until after his incarnation when He took on Him the seed of Abraham and was made in the likeness of men.

By the way, is this one of Muz's " only 13 places" where the text crits differ? (Just kidding of course)

Will K

 

[Steven Avery]

the point of desperation

the point of desperation

By the way, is this one of Muz's " only 13 places" where the text crits differ?

Hi Will,

That type of amazing comment from muzicman really leaves one a bit puzzled. Obviously he wants to fight against the possibility that the Bible in our hands, the King James Bible, really represents the authority of God. Many folks take that view, I did myself for awhile before my head cleared out.

However, how can there be a dialogue, a debate, a discussion, a sharing, if even the most basic issues are not even remotely understood by one side in the discussion ? If the most absurd and inane statements can be given as a throwaway line, and where there is no accountability whatsoever. Change the topics, count points, play politics, look for rah-rahs, and don't worry one whit about consistency, accuracy and truth applied to the study of the scriptures, the word of God.

That level of deep confusion and words spoken brashly and wrongly cannot be rooted just in logical and scholastic difficulties, there must be much deeper forces at play.

What you see is a type of irrational despising of the pure word of God, even against the concept that God may have inspired and preserved His word tangibly and really. We know that the only real claimant for the pure word of God is the King James Bible, yet they get to the point of desperation that they even have to attack the very concept of God's word being available, tangible, pure and perfect.

On another forum Will discussed very sharply about how finding that pure word is supposedly the desire of all the sci-techni-crit searching. Yet is anybody really believing that God's word is pure ?

Only my brethren who read, accept, receive and believe the King James Bible is the pure word of God, the scriptures, the Holy Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[dreadknought]

Just another proof that the ESV is a fake bible. Back in the days spoken of when the LORD brought the people out of the land of Egypt, there was no Jesus. He had not yet been incarnated. His human name is Jesus. "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:20-21.

The Lord Jesus Christ is never referred to as Jesus until after his incarnation when He took on Him the seed of Abraham and was made in the likeness of men.

By the way, is this one of Muz's " only 13 places" where the text crits differ? (Just kidding of course)

Will K

Good morning,

Interesting... Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament?

KJV
Exodus 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

ESV
Exodus 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 "But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

KJV
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
ESV
1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

KJV
1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
ESV
1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

KJV
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
ESV
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

 

[dreadknought]

Hi Folks,

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

PS
The earlier discussions about Warfield and inerrancy and John 1:18 and gnosticism might be nice to continue, preferably in a venue where the focus could go a bit deeper. We succeed quite well on WhichVersion on that type of back and forth. Any posting here would most nicely address the paradigmic and verse issues about the purity and perfection of the Bible as a whole, its identity, and particular verses and sections..

So... the Alexandrian text is now gnostic? Not Arian and a Jehovah's Witness' perversion?
see your previous post #196 or thereabouts.

 

[Steven Avery]

So... the Alexandrian text is now gnostic? Not Arian and a Jehovah's Witness' perversion?
see your previous post #196 or thereabouts.

Hi Bereancam,

A lot of this is discussed in the article I recommended by Tim Warner.

http://studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/john1n18.html
The Gnostic & Arian Corruption of John 1:18

Arians are happy to use a gnostic corruption if it fits their theory of a lesser god.

As I indicated, we could take the discussion deeper, comparing the usages of the verse and the terminology in three, actually four, distinct periods. The apostolic writings of the New Testament, the Ante-Nicene writers around the 200s, the later 400's and 500s Creedal and Catholic age, and the Reformation. I recommended WhichVersion for such a discussion, which should best be done with heart and a desire to learn and understand. I'm sure I would learn a lot looking at it deeper.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[dreadknought]

Hi Bereancam,

I recommended WhichVersion for such a discussion, which should best be done with heart and a desire to learn and understand. I'm sure I would learn a lot looking at it deeper.

Shalom,
Steven

TOL commandment #11
11. Thou SHALL NOT attempt to redirect members to another forum. (Profile and signature links may be allowed with administrator approval.) Using our PM system to redirect members to other forums is also a banable offense.

 

[Steven Avery]

TOL commandment #11 11. Thou SHALL NOT attempt to redirect members to another forum. (Profile and signature links may be allowed with administrator approval.) Using our PM system to redirect members to other forums is also a banable offense.

Pretty strange policy. On the forums I moderate we are frequently discussing that type of other forum is best for what type of discussion, we don't have a "this is the only place" mentality.

Anyway, I will be happy to avoid such discussion in the future here. As I indicated I only came to Theology Online for this discussion, I had left some time ago. Perhaps I will see some others to participate in, now that I have returned. However I like conceptual and paradigmic discussions of some depth, as well as detailed studies, e.g. on Bible verses.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion

13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion

Hi Folks,

Even if muzicman doesn't really want to discuss in detail, it would be proper for him to share with us his source for:

"there are 13 places where text crit scholars cannot make a clear assertion as to the correct reading"

As I indicated above, this is a rather amazing statement, and it needs a source, along with a list of the verses.

(My conjecture is that muzicman is repeating, or misrepeating, something he heard en passant in seminary. And that there simply is no written source for this at all. If that is the case, muzicman should forthrightly say so, it is only proper discussion etiquette to retract a false statement.)

And whether he tries to defend the statement or note, I would like him to apply the concept to one specific section, the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus by Mark. In other words, is muzicman actually saying the only accurate Bibles would have these 12 verses (snipped) out, and thus there is no accurate Bible available in English today anywhere ? If some textcrits have so declared, is that really his view ?

Shalom,
Steven

 

[brandplucked]

Christ revealed in the O.T.; Jesus is not.

Christ revealed in the O.T.; Jesus is not.

Hi B. I thought you might come up with something like this. The true Bible shows that Christ was revealed in the Old Testament. However the human part or nature of the Son of God, that is, Jesus, was not. Scripturally there was no Jesus until after the incarnation. The ESV got it wrong. Not even Westcott-Hort, nor the RV, ASV, NRSV, NASB, NIV went for that errant reading of Jesus in Jude 5. But of course since you guys don't have nor believe in an inerrant Bible in any language, then you are free to pick and choose among the thousands of variant readings and make up your own bible version as you go along your merry way.

Happy hunting,

Will K

Good morning,

Interesting... Does the New Testament interpret the Old Testament?

KJV
Exodus 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

ESV
Exodus 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 "But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.

KJV
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
ESV
1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

KJV
1 Corinthians 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
ESV
1 Corinthians 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

KJV
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
ESV
Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.

 

[dreadknought]

Hi B. I thought you might come up with something like this. The true Bible shows that Christ was revealed in the Old Testament. However the human part or nature of the Son of God, that is, Jesus, was not. Scripturally there was no Jesus until after the incarnation. The ESV got it wrong. Not even Westcott-Hort, nor the RV, ASV, NRSV, NASB, NIV went for that errant reading of Jesus in Jude 5. But of course since you guys don't have nor believe in an inerrant Bible in any language, then you are free to pick and choose among the thousands of variant readings and make up your own bible version as you go along your merry way.

Happy hunting,

Will K

Ah... I'll choose the meat understanding for 1000 Alex...
The sown seed cannot produce fruit unless it is nourished, watered & receives the Light.:think:

Good luck!

 

[Steven Avery]

1000 Alex

1000 Alex

Ah... I'll choose the meat understanding for 1000 Alex...

Hi Bereancam, this reference is a bit confusing. Is there somebody here named Alex ? I know there are not 1000 Alexandrian MSS. Although the counts vary, you could say not even 10, and they are wildly divergent from each other, so that the number can be trimmed simply to basically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both scribally corrupt, and the basis, due to very mistaken concepts, of the modern versions.

Anyway, if you can explain the comment, it would be helpful.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hi Bereancam, this reference is a bit confusing. Is there somebody here named Alex ? I know there are not 1000 Alexandrian MSS. Although the counts vary, you could say not even 10, and they are wildly divergent from each other, so that the number can be trimmed simply to basically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both scribally corrupt, and the basis, due to very mistaken concepts, of the modern versions.

Anyway, if you can explain the comment, it would be helpful.

Shalom,
Steven

I think he was referring to the tv show, Jeopardy, and Alex Trebek...

:cheers:

 

[blackout]

I've read through the whole debate and just wanted to post my own conclusions...

it should be abundantly clear to those who have been reading our discussion that your side has no inerrant Bible and no Final Written Authority, whereas the King James Bible believer does.

I have been reading through the debate and so far I have to say that BrandPlucked is dead wrong on this point. He/she has given NO positive reason of its own why the KJV is the only inerrant Bible and Final Written Authority and therefore has given us no reason to believe that he/she or anyone on that side has something the other side does not. BrandPlucked has failed in demonstrating why his/her side does have reason beyond that of the opponent and therefore has lost the debate. themuzicman's comments here are apropos of the entire exchange:

The simple and undeniable fact is - you do not have nor believe in a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language, including your Hebrew and Greek. This is not a side issue of relative unimportance; it is the fundamental premise from which you reason your way into criticizing the Book.

The simple and undeniable fact is - Neither do you.

If you think the debate is over because you do not accept my ‘proof’ and abundant evidence for the King James Bible being the only true Standard of the inspired words of God, then that is fine with me. I do not expect you to believe what I do about the King James Bible.

I think the debate is over because you've admitted that you cannot provide evidence that it is inerrant.

From the other side, this really sums up the exchange:

I am totally accurate when I label your position as being one who does not believe that any such thing as an inspired, complete and inerrant Bible exists in any language. I am a Bible believer who actually believes that God has given to the world a real and tangible Book that is the preserved and infallible words of God in printed form, and in the closest thing to a universal language

So BrandPlucked is different in that he/she has a belief. He/she has a belief in the KJV that others like themuzicman do not. Everyone at the outset knew this was the case. The fact that one person believes that there is “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” and someone else does not was not in contention anywhere. And yet this is the sum total of BrandPlucked's argument—that he/she has a belief and someone else doesn't. Well, if that's really all BrandPlucked set out to show, fine and dandy. But BrandPlucked has utterly failed in showing that he/she actually does have “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” outside his/her own mind. The pathetically ironic thing is that even though BrandPlucked showed us no reason whatsoever for “a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language” outside his/her own proclaiming that he/she does have such a thing, he/she then goes on to criticize themuzicman opponent saying “Your merely telling us that we do not have an inspired Bible does not make it so.” Does BrandPlucked not realize that he/she just contradicated his/her entire argument?

BrandPlucked says over and over again that his/her purpose was not to prove the KJV inerrant, but to “present the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.” Though he/she may believe he/she has done so by merely and only stating a few reasons in the first post, since every one of those reasons have been shown to NOT support the case “for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today” and that, in fact, such a belief fails by those very reasons, one wonders why BrandPlucked thinks he/she still has a basis for the belief. The only reason I can see is that given by themuzicman—despite not having any reason for the belief, he/she still continues to uphold it, which is fine for him/her, but means nothing to anybody else except, perhaps, that people who hold to KJV priority simply because they want to are better to be pitied than believed.

I and many thousands of other Christians believe we have such a book.

Well, good for you, BrandPlucked. Too bad you have given no one who didn't already believe any reason to believe your belief and made them think twice about believing you since you don't seem to have any evidential or rational reasons for what you think.

 

[blackout]

While it does nothing to present a case for the KJV's inerrancy which BrandPlucked set out to do (and failed), he/she does point out two inconsistencies of themuzicman. BrandPlucked is right when he/she says there is nothing in scripture which says a canon or the Bible as we have it in any form since ancient times is something the Church should or would establish, let alone be purposed to establish:

Then you retreat to the UNBiblical idea that God has charged the church to discover the originals from the scribal manuscripts,

One might as well believe in the divine authority of the Magisterium and Tradition and become Catholic as believe in that—both are without any scriptural support.

BrandPlucked is also correct in pointing out the logical inconsistency of saying that the originals were the inspired, inerrant word of God without having any idea what those are nor being able to test them to verify them to see that they are what they should be. It is as baseless a proposition as the KJV's inerrancy and can only be believed by someone who wants to believe it, not by someone who has previous reason to.

There was, however, one grotesquely false argument made by BrandPlucked that needs to be addressed:

Only by producing such a Book [one that is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% Bible in any language] and comparing it to the King James Bible could you even hope to show that the King James Bible is not the inspired and inerrant words of God.

This is about as foolish a statement as one can get (apart from saying there is no god). One doesn't need a “King James Bible” in order to disprove the King James Bible. That is circular reasoning and fallacious logic. AND it even directly contradicts scripture, which tells us that ANYTHING which happens in space and time which conflicts with something that is supposedly from God means that such a thing is not from God. Thus, for just a few examples out of multitudes, we have things like this:

If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
--Deuteronomy 18:22

When all this comes true - and it surely will - then they will know that a prophet has been among them.
--Ezekiel 33:33

The Lord was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of his words fall to the ground.
--1 Samuel 3:19

Thus, for instance, if Yeshua was NOT resurrected in space-time history, this literally means that the entire New Testamebt must be thrown away, whether KJV or otherwise—it is errant. If any part of scripture has no continuance with what has happened in history and in space and in time, it must be discarded as errant. It must be seen as something God has not done or said. Therefore one does not need an inerrant bible to show that the KJV is errant, one only needs to show in one place that the KJV does not agree with the reality of things and the KJV can be shown thereby to be errant. You will find that situation in all translations—KJV or otherwise.

In support of neither side, it appears to me as if the proponents of the KJV as being inerrant and the only complete Word of God and also those who hold to a Sola Scriptura position which requires treating the scriptures as if they were any kind of final authority, divine of themselves even if only in the originals, have both deified the text and fallen into the heresy of Docetism.