No, and even if it were true, it would not to be to any extent that begins to overcome the fact that the English language has changed to a degree that makes the KJV completely outdated and obsolete.
Why I support the KJV Bible
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
I don't think logic should lead anyone to believe the Bible God has given him is flawed or not to be completely trusted.
God will preserve His word forever.
This sentence makes no sense! Who cares what you think logic should do? Logic, performed correctly, leads where it leads.
Truth is that which is consistent with reality. Any claim is either true or it is false and logic is THE ONLY MEANS we have to determine whether any particular claim is or is not true.
Opinions are only valid in matters of opinion. Whether the KJV is flawed is a matter of established fact and your opinion doesn't go into it.
There are lots of things that could mean. If you believe that the KJV is the perfect exemplar of this principle, then you're a fool.
I believe the KJV is the best English translation of God's preserved infallible word today. I do not understand those who claim to be speaking God's truth while not believing God has given them a flawless source of truth for them to promote.
A belief. That's all it is. You believe it in opposition to any evidence to the contrary that is presented to you.
If all you have is a personal belief and a lack of understanding, then why should we listen to you?
It may have been at some point in the past, but it is definitely not the best translation we have today.
Why do you assume God needs to keep the Bible "infallible" (without error) in order to preserve it?
Why can't He write a book and keep it preserved simply by the nature of how He wrote it?
In other words...
Consider Shakespeare's plays. He wrote his plays in the late 1500s, yet each of them (the ones we have, at least) are still preserved to this day, simply because if part of a play went missing, the whole of the work would be destroyed, though it could probably be reconstructed, for the most part, simply because of the story it tells. By that, I mean that we could look at the story before the missing part, and the story after the missing part, and barring any lost plot twists being missing, we could satisfactorily come up with a recreation of the missing piece of the story.
Human eyes have a blind spot in the top corners of vision, about 2/3 the way from the center of vision to the edge. We don't notice it, usually, because our brain fills in the gap with the data it receives from the rest of the eye.
Our DNA is capable of correcting errors in our genome using its programming.
God is responsible for BOTH of the latter examples here. BOTH of those examples are EXTREMELY complex, compared to the simplicity of writing a book over the course of 1600 years. Do you think God couldn't write a book with error correcting mechanisms, for when errors do creep in? Do you think He couldn't write a book that can fill in the details of certain events where it's not provided within the immediate context?
God wrote a book that tells a story, just like Shakespeare wrote plays that tell a story. The Bible has a plot. It tells the story of the beginning of the world, the creation of man, man's fall, the destruction and preservation of mankind, the choosing of one man to be the father of many, and his grandson who would be the father of an entire nation that was to be separate from the rest of the world, and then it tells the story of that nation's history for the next 1500 years or so, and then the birth of the One who would redeem mankind from the fall, how he was crucified, and how he rose from the dead, and then it tells of a plot twist, how that nation was cut off temporarily, so that the Creator could work with a different group of people, a mystery kept secret since the beginning of the world, but also that the Creator will eventually go back to working with that chosen nation, and when He does, the world will soon end, and man shall live forever with Him.
That message, that story, that plot, has been preserved since it was written, when the authors of the books within the Bible wrote those books. That story has gone unchanged. Yes, the minor details may have been lost, or errors have been made when transcribing those details, and there are plenty of Atheist sites containing lists of all the inconsistencies within the Bible, and most of them are correctly identified, but NONE of those errors, or errata, or inconsistencies, affect the overarching PLOT of the Bible, which is why we can trust that whatever Bible you use (with a couple of exceptions), you can know that it's God's word, because it tells the exact same overarching story that the rest of them do.
It's a level of preservation ABOVE the level of preservation you seem to believe in, marke. It allows for small, minor errors, because God knew that fallible humans would need to transcribe, make copies of, and spread His word, so in order to prevent the Bible from simply becoming a game of Chinese Whispers, He wrote a book with a story, rather than just a collection of plattitudes and nuggets of wisdom (though the story does contain those as well, but in story form).
Because the Bible doesn't need to be "flawless" in order for it to be God's word.
God isn't so stuck up that He would require His word to be perfectly transcribed and/or translated, since He knows that eventually, someone somewhere will make a mistake, but it will be corrected, or at least, accounted for, by the context of the rest of the Bible.
It's the very reason why the Bible is such a thick book! It's so that if we make an error, that error, just like the Book of DNA written within us humans, can be corrected.
It's an excellent example of "one witness shall not be enough to establish a matter; two or three witnesses are needed."
Most modern versions have been tainted by Westcott's flawed Greek text. God is not in that sort of perversion preservation.
I put you on ignore yesterday. I'm taking you off ignore today.
I realized that you've not done anything worthy of being put in that company. You're stubborn and lazy but not a complete idiot or blasphemous like most of those on my ignore list. I just have to get used to the fact that you simply aren't going to engage with any sort of substance and stop letting it bother me so much.
Tainted how? Flawed how?
Does it make a difference to the overarching plot of the Bible? If so, how?
Because you say so?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
John Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort when W&H purposed to rewrite the Greek Text, using flawed texts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Burgon critiqued their results and offered his excellent observations in the 1881 book "The Revision Revised." I offer pages 15 and 16 of that book as support for why I believe the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and, consequently Westcott's new Greek text, are horribly corrupted.
Corrupted how? How many times must you be asked this question?
What does it do to the text?
Do you even know?
I should explain that detailing the evidence on which I am persuaded to believe the manuscripts Westcott and Hort used in their revision of the Greek text were some of the most corrupted manuscripts in history would require hundreds or thousands of facts and months of discussion. Let me just say there are thousands of differences between the Greek text used to translate the KJV and the Greek text used today by most modern versions.
Why can't you answer the questions I asked?
Tainted how? Flawed how?
Address the points made in post #26 please.
Do the flaws you think are so important make a significant difference to the overarching plot of the Bible?
Try starting with a few examples of so-called "facts." That's what the forum is here for, marke.
This is called elephant hurling. It's a logical fallacy for a reason.
Try making an actual argument instead.
"Instead of dividing over the few textual variances that exist in the Greek manuscripts, we should join hands because of the overwhelming consistency of the New Testament manuscripts, because that overwhelming consistency among them is actually evidence of its reliability!"
-Will Duffy, Sermon "Bible Versions Matter Part 2" from September 27th, 2015
"To be skeptical of the resultant texts of the New Testament books is to allow all of Classical Antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested to biographically as the New Testament."
- John W. Montgomery (Will Duffy also quoted him in the aforementioned sermon.)
The three different Greek textual families agree 98-99% of the time, marke. In other words. That's how minor the differences are.
-Will Duffy, Sermon "Bible Versions Matter Part 2" from September 27th, 2015
"To be skeptical of the resultant texts of the New Testament books is to allow all of Classical Antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested to biographically as the New Testament."
- John W. Montgomery (Will Duffy also quoted him in the aforementioned sermon.)
The three different Greek textual families agree 98-99% of the time, marke. In other words. That's how minor the differences are.
I don't agree that the corrupted manuscripts promoted by Westcott and Hort in their revised Greek are in major agreement. They are not. I referred to Burgon's book "The Revision Revised" for detailed comparison between the Textus Receptus and the flawed manuscripts promoted by Westcott et al.
For example, in just 3 chapters in Luke, the Vaticanus differs from the Textus Receptus no less than 500 times. Vaticanus transposes 243 words, omits 354 words, adds 173 words, and substitutes 146 words. I agree that the Holy Spirit can use Bibles translated from flawed manuscripts but that does not negate the fact that corrupted texts are still corrupted.
Good for you. No one cares. Make an actual argument.
Saying it doesn't make it so, marke!
Again, they are 98-99% in agreement. That's a fact.
Referring to a book that no one has access to, and failing to provide an example from said book, means that no one knows what you're talking about.
Quit obfuscating.
In what way does this address anything I said?
But you can't seem to explain why He didn't.
Corrupted HOW, marke!?
You won't explain why you think it's corrupted.
Does this supposed "corruption" affect the overarching plot of the Bible?
Even if it could somehow be said the Textus Receptus and the Sinaiticus agree 98% of the time, the disagreements are so troubling to me that I don't care to use any version of the Bible associated with the questionable text.
The Two Paths Of New Testament Manuscripts
Since the Garden of Eden, when Satan said to Eve, “Did God really say?”, Satan has been corrupting the words of God to deceive us. Every time God has given us His written Word, Satan has countered…
christianitybeliefs.org
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
I respect the KJV and do not respect other versions that leave out critical information from their translation. I give this one verse as an example:
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
NIV
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
So in other words, all you have are your personal preferences.
Fine. But you don't have any valid reason for it.
I'd rather have a reason for my beliefs.
The Two Paths Of New Testament Manuscripts
Since the Garden of Eden, when Satan said to Eve, “Did God really say?”, Satan has been corrupting the words of God to deceive us. Every time God has given us His written Word, Satan has countered…
Corrupt Path – The ‘Minority Text’ consists of only 5% of existing manuscripts. The main texts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone, and they disagree with the ‘Majority Text’ in 13,000 places.
And?
A matter of opinion.
Versions such as the NKJV (which like the KJV, is a "formal equivalence" translation) has notes for when things are added or removed, and indicates when words are added using italics. You know that, right?
And here's the NKJV:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. - 1 Timothy 3:16 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy3:16&version=NKJV
Guess what?
Here's what the Greek says:
As you can see, not even the King James Version which you hold so high completely matches the Greek text.
Would the prophet Jeremiah suffice?
How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV)Oh... right....
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
(Jeremiah 8:8 KJV)Rhema
(You might wish to check the Hebrew sources.)