Companion Thread for KJV only debate

[Steven Avery]

In other words "You believe" The God of the Old and New Testament "Preserved" his word in the KJV regardless of ANY original manuscripts.

Yep, those are in fact "other words", not spoken or asserted or believed by me.

If I saw original MSS that were different than the King James Bible, or even had received any real evidence that such original differing MSS existed at one time, then I would prefer those MSS over the King James Bible.

All my studies have confirmed my faith that God's word is inspired and preserved, tangible, and I have his pure words in my hands, as can every ploughman and even every seminarian, when I read the beautiful and majestic and pure King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Instead of railing on me and others about what we believe, why not just present your case? You state that we don't believe something so why is it so important that we admit to it? Isn't your truth and the support of that truth strong enough to stand?

Start here. What is your definition of inerrant?

Hi CM. Steven is not 'railing' on you. He is simply stating a fact that you are unwilling to admit. Once you come clean and show a little honesty in this crucial matter, then we could begin to at least respect you for your sincerity.

But most of you are being hypocrites. You profess to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture but you have no Scriptures to show us.

Inerrancy simply means "no error, no mistakes, infallible". That is what my Webster's dictionary says.

Now, since I posted this in my discussion with Muz, maybe you would like to actually address these issues rather than slip-sliding around them like he does.

Which of these is the inerrant and historically true Bible?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

And these are just a few of the hundreds of textual and translational differences I could show you.

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Branplucked has admitted that he cannot do what he claimed he would do his opening post. He lured somebody into a discussion so that he could accuse them of not having a real bible with no intentions of ever demonstrating that the KJV is what he claims it to be.

Congratulations to Muz for sticking to the topic and adhering to the rules of debate! :first: Well done!

Hi CM. It appears that you too have a reading comprehension problem. Please show where I said or was even supposed to say that the purpose of the One on One discussion was to "prove" the King James Bible is the true words of God.

Just give the quote and I will publicly apologize and repent in dust and ashes.

What I did was to give evidence defending the King James Bible as being the inerrant words of God. Some will receive it and others will not. We believe we have an inerrant Bible. Your side knows you don't, but persists in putting on a shallow pretense of being Bible believers.

That is what I mean when I say that Bart Ehrman is more of an honest man than most of you.

Will K

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi CM. It appears that you too have a reading comprehension problem. Please show where I said or was even supposed to say that the purpose of the One on One discussion was to "prove" the King James Bible is the true words of God.

Just give the quote and I will publicly apologize and repent in dust and ashes.

What I did was to give evidence defending the King James Bible as being the inerrant words of God. Some will receive it and others will not. We believe we have an inerrant Bible. Your side knows you don't, but persists in putting on a shallow pretense of being Bible believers.

That is what I mean when I say that Bart Ehrman is more of an honest man than most of you.

Will K

okee-dokee

From the very first paragraph in the your very first post to the one on one thread:

Greetings in the precious name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I first want to thank the TOL moderator who contacted me about presenting the case for the King James Bible as being the only complete, inerrant, preserved and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today.

You have represented yourself as an expert on the inerrancy and inspiration of the KJV. Then, in post 8 of the thread you say:

It is impossible for me to “prove” the King James Bible is the only true, inspired, preserved and 100% true words of God

An expert on the KJV cannot prove that what he says is true. What case can you make for your position if you cannot offer any meaningful support yet alone proof of your position?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi CM. Steven is not 'railing' on you. He is simply stating a fact that you are unwilling to admit. Once you come clean and show a little honesty in this crucial matter, then we could begin to at least respect you for your sincerity.

But most of you are being hypocrites. You profess to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture but you have no Scriptures to show us.

Inerrancy simply means "no error, no mistakes, infallible". That is what my Webster's dictionary says.

Based on this definition, then no, there is no inerrant bible in existence, including the KJV. Books are issued in second, third and so on editions to correct errors in the text. If the book is reissued, such as a popular novel, it is issued as a second printing or third printing and so on.

The KJV went through at least for editions to correct printing errors and spelling errors. That does not fit your own definition for inerrant. Period. You lose.

 

[daveme7]

Amen. Thank you Dave for an edifying and sensible scriptural discussion. And for responding simply and clearly to my request for the forum thoughts on the John 1:18 question which is a forum debate centerpiece.. May we always be lifting up the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and your sweet and earnest tone above was nice to see and to read.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steve,
Thanks for the kind words.
I am going to have to go back and re read your posts for the evidances on the 1st John 5:7-8 issue. I am very interested in seeing proof established on those verses. I do beleive it is part of the word of God.
To let you know, I call myself a King James Man. I believe the KJV, TR, and MT are the words of God. I slightly differ with KJV onlyism.
The things I do not like about it is many authors(Gail Riplinger ect.) misrepresent evidances against modern versions and those in history who are purported to have corrupted God's word. I also do not like the divisive words of Riplinger, Grady, Ruckman, and others. Does not mean I will not read them and gain what I can from them. I see it this way, if the evidance used is misrepresented and the attitude that comes from them(I see it as a sin) then why associate with their movement?
The other thing where I differ is that the KJV is not the end all to be all. It is the best now and the last, nearly 400 years. I think I would allow for a new translation or revision of the KJV. I am looking into the KJV 21st century and the NAV(New AV third millinial edition. I really do not think there is much differance between the two, put out by the same ministry.)

As far as the NKJV, from my understanding-they consulted the modern Greek text's in the translation and would have to do a comparison study to see how faithful to the KJV, RT, and MT.

I just thought I would let you know where I stand on some issues.

God bless
Dave

 

[Steven Avery]

Steve, Thanks for the kind words. I am going to have to go back and re read your posts for the evidances on the 1st John 5:7-8 issue. I am very interested in seeing proof established on those verses. I do beleive it is part of the word of God.

Hi Dave, greetings and welcome.

Actually I have not written much in depth here on the Johannine Comma, largely because of a lack of serious un-politicized inquiry. Also I take a slightly different approach to these issues, trying to emphasize the paradigmic before the technical and details and argumentative. Although I do hope to write some articles only on the Johannine Comma shortly, the subject is truly fascinating on many levels and it is the fulcrum verse of the pure Bible debate. We can also discuss these issues long-term over at WhichVersion. I actually invited you over there a while back, knowing it would be a more edifying discussion, when I saw the tense dialog struggles on a confused version forum to which I bid adieu. At that time we were discussing things like whether Origen was over-emphasized as the textual culprit, and some of the pure-King-James-Bible authors. As to the writers you mention here, William Grady's book "Final Authority" was incredibly helpful to me some years back when I was trying to understand this question and separate the real issues from the pseudo-issues and non-issues. And this morning I wrote a post on Peter Ruckman on a pro-KJB webforum hosted by Brandon Staggs who has a fine web site with the excellent Magic Marker page that shows very clearly verses that are in the King James Bible and missing or presumed dead in the modern versions.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[adamwaw]

Yep, those are in fact "other words", not spoken or asserted or believed by me.

If I saw original MSS that were different than the King James Bible, or even had received any real evidence that such original differing MSS existed at one time, then I would prefer those MSS over the King James Bible.

All my studies have confirmed my faith that God's word is inspired and preserved, tangible, and I have his pure words in my hands, as can every ploughman and even every seminarian, when I read the beautiful and majestic and pure King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

Sure Steven.

Did God preserve "Book" or "Tree"
Did John write "take away his part out of the "BOOK" of life or the "TREE" of life? The KJV says "book," even though there is not one single Greek manuscript that reads that. H.C. Hoskier says that the reading "book" is found only in manuscripts 57 and 141 (296 & 2049), but he also states that those manuscripts are merely later copies of Erasmus' Textus Receptus themselves! You cannot prove the TR reading is found in Greek Manuscripts by showing that it is found in the TR, later copies of itself. Those two manuscripts are 16th century manuscripts that Erasmus did not even have access to.
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. "

(By the "very meanest" translation, they meant the most humble, common, or mediocre. They were speaking of all translations of the Bible in general, not about their own translation specifically.) They clearly did not believe that the King James Version was the only, last, and final Word of God for the English language.

So all your studies have "confirmed" that the KJV was written by God himself without man's intervention.
That beautiful and majestic writing you hear is not anywhere found in the Oldest texts is it Steven.
Just take out all of the italicized words and see how it reads.
Yes this is how "Jewish God" was communicating to the people in those day's.
Thats funny that God didn't use the "English" language but instead three different types!

:jawdrop:

 

[brandplucked]

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

Hi CM. You guys are a funny bunch. I responded to your false idea that I said I was going to "prove" the King James Bible. Then I included this whole list when you asked about inerrancy, and you completely ignored it.

Now, since I posted this in my discussion with Muz, maybe you would like to actually address these issues rather than slip-sliding around them like he does.

Which of these is the inerrant and historically true Bible?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

And these are just a few of the hundreds of textual and translational differences I could show you.

Then you come back with this picky little thing as your response.

okee-dokee

From the very first paragraph in the your very first post to the one on one thread:

You have represented yourself as an expert on the inerrancy and inspiration of the KJV. Then, in post 8 of the thread you say:


An expert on the KJV cannot prove that what he says is true. What case can you make for your position if you cannot offer any meaningful support yet alone proof of your position?

I did present evidence that to show that the King James Bible is the pure word of God. Can I or anybody else "prove" that it is, or that it isn't? No. Can you "prove" the existence of God? No. You can offer a lot of reasons and evidence of why you think God exists, but you cannot prove it to anybody unless God opens your understanding and gives you faith.

All you guys have demonstrated is that you strain at gnats and swallow camels. You jump on the false understanding that I supposedly said I was going to prove the KJB is God's word, and completely ignore the long list of concrete examples that do prove that all your modern perversions cannot possibly be the pure and 100% true words of God.

And you keep refusing to openly admit that you do not believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and wholly true words of God.

Will K

 

[PaulMcNabb]

That is what I mean when I say that Bart Ehrman is more of an honest man than most of you.

I have sat through several semester courses of Dr. Ehrman and he is a very good teacher---quite engaging. And I think he is right on a number of things, but he goes too far on others. I'm sorry that he has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. When strict inerrantists with fundamentalist viewpoints are finally brought face-to-face with the historical facts, too many are unable to separate their previously held, fundamentalist worldview from Christianity. It is quite sad that so many don't survive that crisis of faith.

 

[PaulMcNabb]

I did present evidence that to show that the King James Bible is the pure word of God. Can I or anybody else "prove" that it is, or that it isn't? No. Can you "prove" the existence of God? No. You can offer a lot of reasons and evidence of why you think God exists, but you cannot prove it to anybody unless God opens your understanding and gives you faith.

You are correct.

And you keep refusing to openly admit that you do not believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and wholly true words of God.

Ooo! Ooo! :wave: Over here! :wave2: Over here! :chuckle:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi CM. You guys are a funny bunch. I responded to your false idea that I said I was going to "prove" the King James Bible. Then I included this whole list when you asked about inerrancy, and you completely ignored it.

Because your own definition of inerrancy makes your list meaningless. The KJV was went through at least 4 editions, editions that corrected printing errors and spelling errors. You said inerrant means error free and the 1611 KJV wnet through 4 editions to correct errors.

Now, since I posted this in my discussion with Muz, maybe you would like to actually address these issues rather than slip-sliding around them like he does.

Which of these is the inerrant and historically true Bible?

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”???

Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years, or 40/32 or 30/42, or _____years and.______and two years; or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

There are differences between translations. Nobody has ever argued that there are not differences between translations. You assert that the KJV is the perfect translation but based on what? Did God say He would preserve a perfect translation in 1611 in English? No. You use the KJV as your final authority by which you measure all other translations. Thats fine, as long as you realize that, by your own definition, it is not an inerrant translation.

And these are just a few of the hundreds of textual and translational differences I could show you.

All you have provided a list of translational differences with an assertion that they are wrong because they do not match the KJV. It is an assertion you make with no support or authority to do so. It is an arbitrary standard of better. The NIV may be a more accurate translation of the meaning of certain verses. The NASB may be a more accurate word-for-word translation because it looked at more ancient texts than were available in 1611. I do not accept your position that the KJV is the best translation because it is written in a language nearly 400 years old. Languages change and the meaning of words change.

When my dad was in high school they would go camping. If somebody said lets go get a faggot for the fire they would go find a bundle of wood as the original meaning of faggot was a bundle of wood. If I were to say lets go get a faggot for the fire I might find myself in trouble with the law for advocating the murder of a homosexual. And thats only about 50 years of drift in the language.

I did present evidence that to show that the King James Bible is the pure word of God.

No, you did not. You presented lists that show differences between translations and your preferences for one translation over all others. You presented no evidence that supports your point.

Can I or anybody else "prove" that it is, or that it isn't? No. Can you "prove" the existence of God? No. You can offer a lot of reasons and evidence of why you think God exists, but you cannot prove it to anybody unless God opens your understanding and gives you faith.

And since your evidence is unconvincing you fall back on the nobody can prove anything argument. All I need to see is some biblical support for your assertion that God chose the 1611KJV (as revised) as His one only book for preserving His word. Can you at least provide that scripture?

By the by, I have said several times on this site that I cannot prove the existence of God. I have also never said that I can. When I have these discussions with atheists and agnostics I am always upfront with them that my belief in God is based on faith and faith alone. I doubt you see the subtle difference between my statement of faith and your statement you represent as fact.

All you guys have demonstrated is that you strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Pot, meet kettle

You jump on the false understanding that I supposedly said I was going to prove the KJB is God's word, and completely ignore the long list of concrete examples that do prove that all your modern perversions cannot possibly be the pure and 100% true words of God.

I will give you this. You make the statement that KJV is the one and only translation but you never actually said you would prove it. You worded your opening post to lead people to conclude that you would do so without ever actually saying you would. I was a very carefully, though deceitful, worded opening post.

And you keep refusing to openly admit that you do not believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and wholly true words of God.

This is a bald face lie about what I and others have said to you. I have said that there is no inerrant translation. As long as men are doing the translating, there will be errors in the text. However, the KJV, NIV, NASB and the list goes on are all the inspired holy (note the spelling) true words of God. If they were not, these translations would not lead people to God. By your own admission, these translations do result in people being saved. Therefore, they must be inspired.

 

[Steven Avery]

themuzicman runs away from Westcott-Hort !

themuzicman runs away from Westcott-Hort !

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]

the inspired and wholly true words of God

the inspired and wholly true words of God

Hi Folks,

CabinetMaker, when you make an accusation as here, you place a heavy burden on yourself, lest you be accountable before God for a railing and false accusation.

Will said to you (emphasis added):

"And you keep refusing to openly admit that you do not believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and wholly true words of God."

You replied strangely :

This is a bald face lie about what I and others have said to you. I have said that there is no inerrant translation.

CabinetMaker, if you are asserting that there is an inerrant text in Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic or any language or combo of languages, you can simply point to the text that you assert, defend and support is the:

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

You have never done so, so Will's statement was 100% accurate, at least based on what we have heard from you so far. He is accurate based on all the information you have given us so far.

Now, to be fair, it is conceivable that you do have such a text, maybe for the NT you believe the Codex Vaticanus is the pure words of God (missing some books) or Codex Sinaiticus. Or perhaps you believe and accept and defend the NA-27, or Robinson-Pierpont, or Westcott-Hort, or Hodges-Farsted or some other text as the "inspired and wholly true words of God." However you have given us no such indication, so the only lie is your railing accusation above.

the KJV, NIV, NASB and the list goes on are all the inspired holy (note the spelling) true words of God. If they were not, these translations would not lead people to God. By your own admission, these translations do result in people being saved. Therefore, they must be inspired.

Perhaps you need some help in elementary language and logic.

CabinetMaker, Are you actually claiming that wildly contradictory texts are both at the same time the :

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

And on your own illogic you accuse a person of being a bald-faced liar?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hi Folks,

CabinetMaker, when you make an accusation as here, you place a heavy burden on yourself, lest you be accountable before God for a railing and false accusation.

Will said to you (emphasis added):

"And you keep refusing to openly admit that you do not believe that any Bible in any language is the inspired and wholly true words of God."

You replied strangely :

CabinetMaker, if you are asserting that there is an inerrant text in Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic or any language or combo of languages, you can simply point to the text that you assert, defend and support is the:

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

You have never done so, so Will's statement was 100% accurate, at least based on what we have heard from you so far. He is accurate based on all the information you have given us so far.

No, my assessment is correct. I know that Muz and PaulMcNaub have made statements about inspired texts. What you are doing with this post is using inerrant and inspired interchangeably and that is a mistake.

Note that in brandplucked post he asked about an inspired text (highlighted in red above0. In your response you used inerrant (highlighted in blue above.) You are mixing definitions. I think that all the believers on this site belive that the bible they is inspired by God and is inerrant in so far as doctrinal issues. Inerrancy in terms of perfect word for word translation is an entirely different matter.

So what I said is factually correct and I stand by it.

Now, to be fair, it is conceivable that you do have such a text, maybe for the NT you believe the Codex Vaticanus is the pure words of God (missing some books) or Codex Sinaiticus. Or perhaps you believe and accept and defend the NA-27, or Robinson-Pierpont, or Westcott-Hort, or Hodges-Farsted or some other text as the "inspired and wholly true words of God." However you have given us no such indication, so the only lie is your railing accusation above.

Actually, very early in this thread, I did state that I use the NIV and that I consider it wholly inspired and accurate. I also stated that I have several translations that I use that I all also believe to be wholly inspired and accurate.

Perhaps you need some help in elementary language and logic.

Really.

CabinetMaker, Are you actually claiming that wildly contradictory texts are both at the same time the :

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

And on your own illogic you accuse a person of being a bald-faced liar?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

You can use different words to convey exactly the same meaning. That there are differences in the translations is undeniable. That these differences amount to major doctrinal issues has yet to be proven. You claim they are errors based on an arbitrary definition of which translation is "best" without defining what "best" is. By what authority do you claim the the KJV to be the best and only translation that should be considered wholly inspired and inerrant?

 

[Steven Avery]

inspired and wholly true words of God

inspired and wholly true words of God

No, my assessment is correct. .. What you are doing with this post is using inerrant and inspired interchangeably and that is a mistake.

Are you really that incapable of reading ? The statement from Will was not only "inspired" (a word where one can fudge the meaning in various ways) but Will very precisely wrote :

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

And wholly true is essentially a synonym for inerrant.
(And in fact it may be a bit stronger than inerrant.)

However, if you cannot properly read a simple sentence given to you repeatedly,
clearly the conversation can be dropped.

One more point, nobody asked what version you "used"
you were asked whether you consider any tangible Bible in any language the:

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

A person can use many things that are not pure and perfect.
However since you contend that contradictory texts are both at the same time:

"wholly inspired and accurate."

Your problem is with simple logic. And this type of logical failing is quite common among those who do not defend any pure Bible as the inspired and wholly true words of God. The ability to think logically and truthfully and soundly are scripturally related to one's walk with the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Thank you for your time, Cabinetmaker. I have to simply mark you as a false accuser, one mired in illogic, and move on. I could conjecture at the causes of your difficulties, starting with the verse above.

Best, I prefer to return to discussions of Bible purity and text substance, like the posts on John 1:18 and the Westcott-Hort alexandrian text corruptions from which muzicman tried to distance himself.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[daveme7]

Hi Dave, greetings and welcome.

Actually I have not written much in depth here on the Johannine Comma, largely because of a lack of serious un-politicized inquiry. Also I take a slightly different approach to these issues, trying to emphasize the paradigmic before the technical and details and argumentative. Although I do hope to write some articles only on the Johannine Comma shortly, the subject is truly fascinating on many levels and it is the fulcrum verse of the pure Bible debate. We can also discuss these issues long-term over at WhichVersion. I actually invited you over there a while back, knowing it would be a more edifying discussion, when I saw the tense dialog struggles on a confused version forum to which I bid adieu. At that time we were discussing things like whether Origen was over-emphasized as the textual culprit, and some of the pure-King-James-Bible authors. As to the writers you mention here, William Grady's book "Final Authority" was incredibly helpful to me some years back when I was trying to understand this question and separate the real issues from the pseudo-issues and non-issues. And this morning I wrote a post on Peter Ruckman on a pro-KJB webforum hosted by Brandon Staggs who has a fine web site with the excellent Magic Marker page that shows very clearly verses that are in the King James Bible and missing or presumed dead in the modern versions.

Shalom,
Steven

Steve,
I should of put it together, but did not realise who you were based on who you post as. I usually keep the same name so people who I have met in the past recognize me. Sorry for not recognizing you!:doh: :hammer:

Have you ever heard of the 21st century KJV bible, know anything about it?

alright-thanks
God bless
Dave Emme

 

[CabinetMaker]

Are you really that incapable of reading ? The statement from Will was not only "inspired" (a word where one can fudge the meaning in various ways) but Will very precisely wrote :

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

And wholly true is essentially a synonym for inerrant.
(And in fact it may be a bit stronger than inerrant.)

And yet another baseless assertion. wholly true does not mean inerrant. Which statement is wholly true and which statement is inerrant:
1) two plus two equals four
2) too + too = for

However, if you cannot properly read a simple sentence given to you repeatedly,
clearly the conversation can be dropped.

Why is it you guys run away when confronted with strong challenges to your position. You didn't even attempt a response to my points. Very telling.

One more point, nobody asked what version you "used"
you were asked whether you consider any tangible Bible in any language the:

"inspired and wholly true words of God."

A person can use many things that are not pure and perfect.
However since you contend that contradictory texts are both at the same time:

"wholly inspired and accurate."

No I can accuse you of a bald faced lie. I stated that I do not consider any bible to be inerrant based on the definition of inerrancy as provided by brandplucked. I also stated that I believe the Bible I use contains the wholly inspire and true words of God. See above for why inerrant and wholly true are not synonymous terms.

Your problem is with simple logic. And this type of logical failing is quite common among those who do not defend any pure Bible as the inspired and wholly true words of God. The ability to think logically and truthfully and soundly are scripturally related to one's walk with the Lord Jesus Christ.

This remains to be seen. So far, you have not addressed any point logically, only emotionally.

Thank you for your time, Cabinetmaker. I have to simply mark you as a false accuser, one mired in illogic, and move on. I could conjecture at the causes of your difficulties, starting with the verse above.

Best, I prefer to return to discussions of Bible purity and text substance, like the posts on John 1:18 and the Westcott-Hort alexandrian text corruptions from which muzicman tried to distance himself.

Shalom,
Steven

You are welcome for the time. I am sorry that you found my arguments to challenging for you to refute and that you now find in necessary to cut your losses and run.

If you would ever like to return and discuss the authority by which you make the claims that you do, yet another point from my previous post you utterly failed to address, I will be here.

In the mean time, may God be with you and bless you and yours.

 

[Steven Avery]

No I can accuse you of a bald faced lie. .

Yes, and I fully expect false railing accusation from you at this point.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, and I fully expect false railing accusation from you at this point.

Shalom,
Steven

Did you notice, that once again, you failed to address any of the points I raise with you? Why would I beliee anything you have to say about the KJV if you wont respond to anything except being accused of lying? (An accusation that I have no reason to rescind at this point, by the way. If you care to prove me wrong then I would be happy to publicly apologize.)