Then why does the LDS church take more of their doctrine from the book of Mormon then the bible? Which one is given more weight for teaching and doctrine, the bible or the book of Mormon?
Companion Thread for KJV only debate
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Then why does the LDS church take more of their doctrine from the book of Mormon then the bible? Which one is given more weight for teaching and doctrine, the bible or the book of Mormon?
dreadknought
New member
Evening Will,
Since you skipped over the post which already revealed your mystery of Wyclif. It's translated from the LATIN VULGATE! Not Greek! Round and round and round and round.
bereancam
dreadknought
New member
Steven Avery
Member
post hoc ergo propter hoc
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hi Folks,
First, Paul, you can fight it out with Joseph Smith about where he and mormon doctrine view the Bible as corrupted, or potentially corrupted subject to examinations of the moment. Since I never claimed the LDS views are consistent about the Bible, it is not my need to try to make sense out of an essentially unbelieving position, as clearly expressed in the quotes above from LDS sources. The quotes above are condemnation enough of the LDS view of the Bible as corrupted, your protestations not changing anything.
And personally I have run into the corruption argument, clearly it can be used very flexibly, for the particular moment. That is how it was used by LDS missionaries towards me when they were uncomfortable with some verses from the Bible for which they did not have a ready response.
One point you make I can accept, is that LDS folks do not necessarily have a consistent position on the BOM either. However that does not change anything I wrote above.
And in fact a short summary of the ad hominen position is given as :
http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~tony/courses/609/Logic/Logic4.html
"Ad hominem (“personal attack”)—“If you can’t argue the case, argue against the person making the case”
And of course there was no personal attack against you, and Will Kinney has written superbly against a variety of attacks on the purity of the Bible in general and the scriptural authority and truth of the Johannine Comma in particular. Every sincere forum reader, agree or disagree with his positions, can see that.
And clearly there is a major point of the actual fallacy that you deliberately omitted in your incomplete definitions above.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/examples.html
"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."
And most everybody should understand that our doctrinal views are not irrelevant to our textual views. And there was no attempt to distract the audience, as Will has replied in depth to any actual attempted substance from posters from all sorts of doctrinal positions.
Your whole complaint on this account was less than much ado about nothing, you were the one who gave us the red herring of a false fallacy claim as a smug diversion.
Clearly you want to take an atomistic view of textual questions here, and would like to claim that every overall discussion about doctrines and views are irrelevant to textual issues, and you do not want larger views examined. In fact the paradigmic issue are actually primary throughout the textual discussions, e.g. how Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger and others view the Bible as corrupted directly effects their argumentations. They have basic viewpoints that both create and support an errant text, and the attempt to examine the underlying viewpoints is foundational to this whole discussion. I would be happy to go into this more, since this addresses the basic fallacy of pseudo-scientific modern textual criticism.
This is your fallacy on the last post.
a) Steven believes the King James Bible is the pure word of God.
b) Therefore Steven believes the Johannine Comma is truly scripture.
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, your wrong position, says that I defend the Johannine Comma because of the (presuppositional) acceptance of the King James Bible as fully scripture, and that (a) is the cause of (b).
In fact, it was studying the Johannine Comma itself which helped bring me to the King James Bible position. In the last post you simply claimed as your own the fallacy that I had gently warned you about.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Hi Folks,
First, Paul, you can fight it out with Joseph Smith about where he and mormon doctrine view the Bible as corrupted, or potentially corrupted subject to examinations of the moment. Since I never claimed the LDS views are consistent about the Bible, it is not my need to try to make sense out of an essentially unbelieving position, as clearly expressed in the quotes above from LDS sources. The quotes above are condemnation enough of the LDS view of the Bible as corrupted, your protestations not changing anything.
And personally I have run into the corruption argument, clearly it can be used very flexibly, for the particular moment. That is how it was used by LDS missionaries towards me when they were uncomfortable with some verses from the Bible for which they did not have a ready response.
One point you make I can accept, is that LDS folks do not necessarily have a consistent position on the BOM either. However that does not change anything I wrote above.
And I actually showed you in some depth, using the Bruce Metzger and higher criticism examples, that arguments about a person's beliefs are not ipso facto a fallacy in the textual discussion and can be very relevant (more below on this). And beyond that Will never claimed that your Johannine Comma opposition was false because of your doctrinal views, he simply noted your views in context and we watched you go a bit haywire.PaulMcNabb said:
And in fact a short summary of the ad hominen position is given as :
http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~tony/courses/609/Logic/Logic4.html
"Ad hominem (“personal attack”)—“If you can’t argue the case, argue against the person making the case”
And of course there was no personal attack against you, and Will Kinney has written superbly against a variety of attacks on the purity of the Bible in general and the scriptural authority and truth of the Johannine Comma in particular. Every sincere forum reader, agree or disagree with his positions, can see that.
And clearly there is a major point of the actual fallacy that you deliberately omitted in your incomplete definitions above.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/examples.html
"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate."
And most everybody should understand that our doctrinal views are not irrelevant to our textual views. And there was no attempt to distract the audience, as Will has replied in depth to any actual attempted substance from posters from all sorts of doctrinal positions.
Your whole complaint on this account was less than much ado about nothing, you were the one who gave us the red herring of a false fallacy claim as a smug diversion.
Clearly you want to take an atomistic view of textual questions here, and would like to claim that every overall discussion about doctrines and views are irrelevant to textual issues, and you do not want larger views examined. In fact the paradigmic issue are actually primary throughout the textual discussions, e.g. how Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger and others view the Bible as corrupted directly effects their argumentations. They have basic viewpoints that both create and support an errant text, and the attempt to examine the underlying viewpoints is foundational to this whole discussion. I would be happy to go into this more, since this addresses the basic fallacy of pseudo-scientific modern textual criticism.
It is strange watching you make the same fallacious accusation about my position that I just warned you about gently.PaulMcNabb said:
Since you seem to be struggling on this I will spell it out.PaulMcNabb said:No. You seem to misunderstand that fallacy as well.
This is your fallacy on the last post.
a) Steven believes the King James Bible is the pure word of God.
b) Therefore Steven believes the Johannine Comma is truly scripture.
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, your wrong position, says that I defend the Johannine Comma because of the (presuppositional) acceptance of the King James Bible as fully scripture, and that (a) is the cause of (b).
In fact, it was studying the Johannine Comma itself which helped bring me to the King James Bible position. In the last post you simply claimed as your own the fallacy that I had gently warned you about.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Has brandplucked stated which version of the King James he believes to be inspired? The 1611 first edition (the "he" version- Ruth 3:15), the 1611 second edition (the "she" version), Blayney's 1769 version, Scrivener's update, the Pure Cambridge version, etc?
Steven Avery
Member
"when all the facts are known"
"when all the facts are known"
Hi Mr. Religion,
Since the modernist versions today have obvious blunders like Jesus not going to the feast and the swine marathon from Gerash, when will you know all the facts and find true scriptures ?
Do you even know if Mark wrote a resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ, or whether that was only an add-on of man ?
Shalom,
Steven Avery
"when all the facts are known"
Hi Mr. Religion,
Where is this recovered original ? And how do you claim to know this recovered text = the original ?Ask Mr. Religion said:
And where could we see the entire autographs which are inerrant ?Ask Mr. Religion said:
And when will all the facts be known ?Ask Mr. Religion said:
Since the modernist versions today have obvious blunders like Jesus not going to the feast and the swine marathon from Gerash, when will you know all the facts and find true scriptures ?
Do you even know if Mark wrote a resurrection account of the Lord Jesus Christ, or whether that was only an add-on of man ?
What actual text is doing the asserting and affirming ? And does the ethereal text you support also affirm any logical and geographical and historical errors while it is theoretically fine on the realms you mention ? And how do you know the Scriptures do all those fine things above if there is no actual text that you can point to, in any language, that does this asserting and affirming ?Ask Mr. Religion said:
If you and the ploughman do not have the tangible and readable pure word of God, how do you know that the real "original autographs" when you find them, might not teach much of discomfit. And is the perfection of the word of God itself "salvific" ? How can salvation be pure and perfect and 100% if God's word is corrupted and lacking in transmission? Perhaps the lacks would be in the salvs, however you define those ?Ask Mr. Religion said:
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Member
inerrancy in the original autographs.
inerrancy in the original autographs.
Hi John Calvin Hall,
Enjoyed looking at your blog.
In a sense Bart Ehrman is the most honest of the modern textcrits, as he follows their theory of corruption of the word of God to its inevitable downhill conclusion, faithlessness.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
inerrancy in the original autographs.
Hi John Calvin Hall,
Enjoyed looking at your blog.
This is very true. However an interesting irony is that even Benjamin Warfield, who is considered the prime founder of the currently fav concept of "inerrancy in the original autographs" actually had the position that the original autographs contained errors.johncalvinhall said:
In a sense Bart Ehrman is the most honest of the modern textcrits, as he follows their theory of corruption of the word of God to its inevitable downhill conclusion, faithlessness.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Member
Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum
Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum
Hi Ask,
Daniel Wallace actually wrote an article on just this quote, which is left totally unmentioned in the article you shared. Unmentioned along with more than a dozen other early church writer citations, including the incredible references from the Council of Carthage in the 5th century and the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. And Daniel Wallace also gives us massive omissions about the Old Latin and Vulgate MSS lines through the early centuries. (His confused take on the Reformers can be discussed separately.)
So, suggestion .. why not simply read Cyprian for yourself, as this has been the subject of some rather fascinating comments over the years by men like Coxe and Scrivener. Here is a chunk, and you can read more of Cyprian at the URL.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html
The Treatises of Cyprian. - Treatise I. - On the Unity of the Church.
The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. xii. 30. He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” John x. 30. and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” 1 John v. 7. And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
First I suggest you read the section above, and then the two articles below, simply trying to understand this controversy over the word of God.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian By: Daniel B. Wallace
http://home.carolina.rr.com/theshuecrew/wallace.html
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7 by Martin A. Shue
This debate about Cyprian, and the attempt to misrepresent his clear sense and source, had a tremendous effect on my studies, I think most everyone can profit from teh studies.
As John Wesley wrote.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm
The seventh verse 1Jo 5:7 (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1Jo 5:6,8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.
And, indeed, what the sun is in the world,
what the heart is in a man,
what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
this verse is in the epistle.
By this the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses 1Jo 5:6,8,9 are indissolubly connected; as will be evident, beyond all contradiction, when they are accurately considered.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum
Hi Ask,
Since the Daniel Wallace article on the Johannine Comma is full of omissions and assertions that range from slippery to crafty to wrong, may I suggest you study just one element first, the reference from Cyprian.Ask Mr. Religion said:
Daniel Wallace actually wrote an article on just this quote, which is left totally unmentioned in the article you shared. Unmentioned along with more than a dozen other early church writer citations, including the incredible references from the Council of Carthage in the 5th century and the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. And Daniel Wallace also gives us massive omissions about the Old Latin and Vulgate MSS lines through the early centuries. (His confused take on the Reformers can be discussed separately.)
So, suggestion .. why not simply read Cyprian for yourself, as this has been the subject of some rather fascinating comments over the years by men like Coxe and Scrivener. Here is a chunk, and you can read more of Cyprian at the URL.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html
The Treatises of Cyprian. - Treatise I. - On the Unity of the Church.
The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. xii. 30. He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” John x. 30. and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” 1 John v. 7. And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
First I suggest you read the section above, and then the two articles below, simply trying to understand this controversy over the word of God.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian By: Daniel B. Wallace
http://home.carolina.rr.com/theshuecrew/wallace.html
Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7 by Martin A. Shue
This debate about Cyprian, and the attempt to misrepresent his clear sense and source, had a tremendous effect on my studies, I think most everyone can profit from teh studies.
One point is small in a sense, yet it shows the Wallace proclivity to tinge his writings. Wallace says it was the King James Bible that popularized the Johannine Comma for the English world (which is true in one sense, since the KJB is historically and majestically the English Bible) yet Wallace never mentions that every English Bible for over 500 years, including the incredibly significant Wycliffe, Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, all had the Johannine Comma ! (Will pointed this out, however I think it is helpful to counterpose it against the Wallace tinged anti-pure-KJB writing above which you gave the forum.)Ask Mr. Religion said:
Amen ! On this Daniel Wallace finally hits the nail on the head. The Battle for the Bible has revolved around this one verse.Ask Mr. Religion said:
As John Wesley wrote.
http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/1John.htm
The seventh verse 1Jo 5:7 (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1Jo 5:6,8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.
And, indeed, what the sun is in the world,
what the heart is in a man,
what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
this verse is in the epistle.
By this the sixth, eighth, and ninth verses 1Jo 5:6,8,9 are indissolubly connected; as will be evident, beyond all contradiction, when they are accurately considered.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
PaulMcNabb
New member
The Bible is used more. Both are considered of equal "weight," just as both Matthew and Luke are of equal "weight".
brandplucked
New member
NET version is typical Every Man for Himself versionist
NET version is typical Every Man for Himself versionist
And you love the guy because he, like you, does not believe there is such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in ANY language. It is not just "my inspired KJV" you refer to that you guys disagree with, but the whole idea of an inspired Bible in any language.
He often 'corrects' the Hebrew texts thinking they have either been corrupted through scribal errors or even lost in parts. Then for his ever-changing New Testament he follows no single Greek texts nor editions, not the ever changing Nestle-Alands, nor the UBS, but often makes up his own readings as he merrily goes along his errant ways. You guys are kindred spirits. No wonder he's your hero.
Folks, please realize the simple fact that not one of these people who are not King James Bible onlyists believe 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God'. So why do some of them still stand in the pulpit and parrot this pious sounding phrase - 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God' - when they don't really believe it?
You can falsely slander and accuse the King James Bible believer as being an ignorant, backwater hick, or a heretic, or demon-possessed (as I have been called), but we are not hypocrites when we tell people The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God Almighty and He has preserved His precious words for us today.
Will K
NET version is typical Every Man for Himself versionist
And you love the guy because he, like you, does not believe there is such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in ANY language. It is not just "my inspired KJV" you refer to that you guys disagree with, but the whole idea of an inspired Bible in any language.
He often 'corrects' the Hebrew texts thinking they have either been corrupted through scribal errors or even lost in parts. Then for his ever-changing New Testament he follows no single Greek texts nor editions, not the ever changing Nestle-Alands, nor the UBS, but often makes up his own readings as he merrily goes along his errant ways. You guys are kindred spirits. No wonder he's your hero.
Folks, please realize the simple fact that not one of these people who are not King James Bible onlyists believe 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God'. So why do some of them still stand in the pulpit and parrot this pious sounding phrase - 'The Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God' - when they don't really believe it?
You can falsely slander and accuse the King James Bible believer as being an ignorant, backwater hick, or a heretic, or demon-possessed (as I have been called), but we are not hypocrites when we tell people The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant words of God Almighty and He has preserved His precious words for us today.
Will K
brandplucked
New member
1 John 5:7 and the true Bible
1 John 5:7 and the true Bible
Hi Steven. Very good points about Wallace's slippery methods, and the article about Cyprian's quote is great information to have.
Thanks,
Will K
1 John 5:7 and the true Bible
Hi Steven. Very good points about Wallace's slippery methods, and the article about Cyprian's quote is great information to have.
Thanks,
Will K
brandplucked
New member
What about those Printing errors?
What about those Printing errors?
Golly, Mr. R. This is a tough one. I've never heard of this type of argument before. O wait, did you get this from Doug Kutilek, or perhaps James White?
All you are doing is trying to prove that NO Bible in ANY language IS now the pure and preserved words of God.
Let's take a closer look and where your 'printing error' leads you.
Ruth 3:15 he or she?
Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion. This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.
Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."
Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."
There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.
In actual fact, they BOTH ended up going back into the city, so there really isn't any significant change in meaning, but let's see what others have done with this verse.
Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.
There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, and the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV).
The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Holman Standard, New English Bible 1970, Douay 1950, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.
We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.
However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."
So, the multitude of modern versions not only continue to disagree among themselves in their textual reading, but also in the reasons they give for their differences. Mr. Kutilek wants us to come to the same conclusion he has, that is, "There is no inerrant and inspired Bible on this earth."
If anyone is interested in seeing more about the "printing errors" issue, here is more info on this, and why those who don't believe any Bible bring it up.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html
Will K
What about those Printing errors?
Golly, Mr. R. This is a tough one. I've never heard of this type of argument before. O wait, did you get this from Doug Kutilek, or perhaps James White?
All you are doing is trying to prove that NO Bible in ANY language IS now the pure and preserved words of God.
Let's take a closer look and where your 'printing error' leads you.
Ruth 3:15 he or she?
Frequently those who claim the King James Bible is riddled with errors and has changed in thousands and thousands of places since it first came out in 1611, bring up Ruth 3:15 as an example of contradiction and confusion. This supposed error is one of Doug Kutilek's favorites. He has no final authority but his own mind and he seems to take great delight in pointing out alleged errors in the KJB.
Mr. Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."
Ruth 3:15. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."
There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. The verse in question was Ruth 3:15. In the 1611 edition, it read, “HE went into the city,” referring to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, it read, “SHE went into the city,” referring to Ruth. These two editions became known as “the Great He Bible” and “the Great She Bible,” respectively. This printing error was soon discovered and changed back to the reading of "she" went into the city.
In actual fact, they BOTH ended up going back into the city, so there really isn't any significant change in meaning, but let's see what others have done with this verse.
Mr. Kutilek and those like him have no infallible Bible. They continue to promote the modern versions which differ from one another in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. The NASB, NIV and ESV often reject the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follow the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls or the Vulgate in scores of instances and often not in the same places as the others. Yet this is the confused Bible of the Month club babel that Mr. Kutilek would recommend to overthrow the time tested KJB.
There still continue to be differences among the many versions even in Ruth 3:15. Those versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible translation, the World English Bible, New Century Version 1991, New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, and the 2005 TNIV (Today's NIV).
The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Holman Standard, New English Bible 1970, Douay 1950, New Jerusalem Bible 1985, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again.
We even get conflicting footnotes in some of these versions. The NKJV which reads SHE, just as the KJB and NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE.
However the NIV, NRSV, both of which still say HE, have footnotes telling us: "Most Hebrew manuscripts read HE, but many Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac read SHE."
So, the multitude of modern versions not only continue to disagree among themselves in their textual reading, but also in the reasons they give for their differences. Mr. Kutilek wants us to come to the same conclusion he has, that is, "There is no inerrant and inspired Bible on this earth."
If anyone is interested in seeing more about the "printing errors" issue, here is more info on this, and why those who don't believe any Bible bring it up.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html
Will K
dreadknought
New member
Muz: Again, if this is your standard, then you've defeated yourself. Remember that the point, here, isn't to compare the KJV to other translations or texts, but for you to prove that the KJV is inerrant. :readthis:
The problem you have now is that you've set up a standard that causes the KJV to fail, as I've demonstrated.:doh:
The problem you have now is that you've set up a standard that causes the KJV to fail, as I've demonstrated.:doh:
dreadknought
New member
I see that the position of the only true bible King James only bunch is to not answer the valid substantiated facts, but proclaim either inadequacies and quotations from Cyprian's commentary that aren't in the Inspired Greek Scriptures, oh and aren't translated without bias . Huh... I seriously doubt that anyone in the peanut gallery is going to keep continuing to present facts when they are dismissed as irrevelant. Good luck... You've not even remotely made a case.
bereancam
bereancam
dreadknought
New member
Muz: How is it that you can claim that the KJV is the inerrant word of God, when the Greek text is is based upon isn't entirely sourced in your vaunted "traditional text"?
I'd also like to point out that you've yet to actually make a case on its own merits that the KJV is inerrant. You've pointed out where you think the KJV is right and other translations are wrong, but that doesn't establish inerrancy. You claim that the KJV is God's preserved Word, and have yet to provide a single link that uniquely points from Scripture to KJV. You've presented no logic that suggests that the KJV is what you claim it is.
At best, you've shown that you have a particular view of preservation, one not entirely supported in Scripture, and made claims that the KJV fulfills this view, even though there are a number of ways that it does not.
Are we coming to a point?
:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO:
I'd also like to point out that you've yet to actually make a case on its own merits that the KJV is inerrant. You've pointed out where you think the KJV is right and other translations are wrong, but that doesn't establish inerrancy. You claim that the KJV is God's preserved Word, and have yet to provide a single link that uniquely points from Scripture to KJV. You've presented no logic that suggests that the KJV is what you claim it is.
At best, you've shown that you have a particular view of preservation, one not entirely supported in Scripture, and made claims that the KJV fulfills this view, even though there are a number of ways that it does not.
Are we coming to a point?
:BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO: :BRAVO:
dreadknought
New member
Muz is ahead in the debate.
Muz is ahead in the debate.
So far the one-on-one has been a little disappointing. Muz has been doing a good job of presenting evidence, history and scriptural reference to support his position. Good job Muz.
Brandplucked's argument has deteriorated into an attempt to get Muz to say specifically that Mus does not believe in a 100% inspired and inerrant translation. Brandplucked has provided a couple of re-posts from articles he has written in the past but has offered no meaningful response to any of the points raised by Muz. Brandplucked has not offered anything other than unsupported assertions that his position is correct.
Muz, keep up the good work. Brandplucked, please quit trying to get Muz to say something and start offering some support for your assertions.
Muz is ahead in the debate.
So far the one-on-one has been a little disappointing. Muz has been doing a good job of presenting evidence, history and scriptural reference to support his position. Good job Muz.
Brandplucked's argument has deteriorated into an attempt to get Muz to say specifically that Mus does not believe in a 100% inspired and inerrant translation. Brandplucked has provided a couple of re-posts from articles he has written in the past but has offered no meaningful response to any of the points raised by Muz. Brandplucked has not offered anything other than unsupported assertions that his position is correct.
Muz, keep up the good work. Brandplucked, please quit trying to get Muz to say something and start offering some support for your assertions.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How can someone prove the KJV is the preserved inerrant word of God when the opponent doesn't believe there's a preserved inerrant word of God?
A bit of a difficult task...
Its difficult, but if the evidence exists to prove that the KJV is The One and Only, then brandplucked should be able to do it. That is the point of a one-on-one discussion, to present the evidence and support for your view point. So far, he has not presented anything that would lead Muz, or anybody else, to conclude that an inerrant translation exists. That be a good place for him to start. What is the evidence and scriptural support for an inerrant translation.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
It's a pretty simple concept.
Did God promise to preserve his words?
There are no originals.
Where is his word?
Is it scattered bits & pieces between 30 versions?
Did God promise to preserve his words?
There are no originals.
Where is his word?
Is it scattered bits & pieces between 30 versions?
- Status