The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

SaintJoeNow said:

Please answer post 467 if you can, defend the NIV there and tell me how the NIV is the word of God when it makes that kind of changes in all dishonesty.....which is no surprise since one of the editors was a known practicing lesbian and psalm 12:6-7 had to be changed to keep it from questioning the changes she made to soften the what the word of God says against homosexuality. All modern corruptions of God's word are fraudulently sold as being God's word, and they all can be proven by their denials and changes against God that they cannot possibly be God's word, They are tares sown by the devil amongst the wheat.

Click to expand...

Is there no limit to the filthiness of the lies that this man is willing to post on a Christian message board? The truth about Psalm 12 has been posted on CF many times, but there is no shortage of radicalized fundamentalists who keep posting their lies. Does the KJV tell us to lie through our teeth; or does the KJV tell us the fate of those who choose to lie rather than tell the truth?

Rev._21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (KJV)

PrincetonGuy said:

Is there no limit to the filthiness of the lies that this man is willing to post on a Christian message board? The truth about Psalm 12 has been posted on CF many times, but there is no shortage of radicalized fundamentalists who keep posting their lies. Does the KJV tell us to lie through our teeth; or does the KJV tell us the fate of those who choose to lie rather than tell the truth?

Rev._21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (KJV)

Click to expand...

You hate post 467, don't you? You hate it so much you are trying to send me to Hell for using it. That's not nice.

How did you like the part about the NIV being published by the same publisher who published the Satanic Bible?

How did you like the part about Wescott and Hort and the cultic affiliations connected to those translators who are held by modern version supporters to be godly men?

Joe said:

Even people who read the NIV must surely recognize that homosexuality is sin. It is not because they learned it from the NIV. It is because they are old enough to remember what they learned from the King James Bible. And your going to let your kids read this dung called the New International Version?

Click to expand...

Joe, I do not defend the NIV in general because I think it tends to be too far down the scale of paraphrase, and I do not favor the underlying text.

However, at some point your criticism goes beyond the bounds of any logic. I am pretty sure reading this from the NIV would give folks the impression that homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

SaintJoeNow said:

. I know what they are going to say before they say it, and they are ignoring evidence presented so I ignore them.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we picked up on that method of yours.


Joe, if you can't read what people say, don't bother posting. This is a discussion board, not a board for Joe to ask people questions without ever reading what they say in response.

tall73 said:

Joe, I do not defend the NIV in general because I think it tends to be too far down the scale of paraphrase, and I do not favor the underlying text.

However, at some point your criticism goes beyond the bounds of any logic. I am pretty sure reading this from the NIV would give folks the impression that homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Click to expand...

Believing God gave me His word in English goes far beyond the bounds of your logic, and it nullifies your logic. Sorry. Why don't you answer posts 471, and 491-495 point by point without jumping off subject?

SaintJoeNow said:

Believing God gave me His word in English goes far beyond the bounds of your logic, and it nullifies your logic. Sorry. Why don't you answer posts 471, and 491-495 point by point without jumping off subject?

Click to expand...

Joe, it is not off topic to quote what you said in a message board and respond to it.

tall73 said:

Joe, I do not defend the NIV in general because I think it tends to be too far down the scale of paraphrase, and I do not favor the underlying text.

However, at some point your criticism goes beyond the bounds of any logic. I am pretty sure reading this from the NIV would give folks the impression that homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Click to expand...

Try looking up "Sodomites" and "abomination" in the King James Bible and then compare it to the NIV and I"m sure you will make excuses for the way the NIV softens the condemnations against Sodomites, a disappointment since I thought you abandoned trying to defend the NIV after seeing how dishonest it is in it's translation of Psalm 12:6-7, completely changing the wording, meaning, and doctrine of that passage....and I wonder why they did that? Hmmm??? Maybe they are trying to fool people to get them to buy their work?

SaintJoeNow said:

Why don't you answer posts 471, and 491-495 point by point without jumping off subject?

Click to expand...

I already answered the articles you quoted from and Jack already commented on my answer.

Until you start actually reading what we post there is no reason to respond to any of your requests.

tall73 said:

Joe, it is not off topic to quote what you said in a message board and respond to it.

Click to expand...

ignoring things and going to a different subject I suppose you can say is remaining on topic, but it sure is not considering the possibility that you have God's word in your hands if you are holding a King James Bible. Why is that possibility so repugnant to you? Or do you believe "With God, all things are possible"...except for Him to give you His word in English.

SaintJoeNow said:

Try looking up "Sodomites" and "abomination" in the King James Bible and then compare it to the NIV and I"m sure you will make excuses for the way the NIV softens the condemnations against Sodomites, a disappointment since I thought you abandoned trying to defend the NIV after seeing how dishonest it is in it's translation of Psalm 12:6-7, completely changing the wording, meaning, and doctrine of that passage....and I wonder why they did that? Hmmm??? Maybe they are trying to fool people to get them to buy their work?

Click to expand...

I explained why I defended it in my post, against my usual inclination.

No more explanations will be given to you for now Joe, because you have already said you don't read the responses, and you have verified that over and over. I will see what Jack has to say, as he actually interacts with what people write.

tall73 said:

I already answered the articles you quoted from and Jack already commented on my answer.

Until you start actually reading what we post there is no reason to respond to any of your requests.

Click to expand...

It's hard for me to believe you read all that and still support modern versions as books which convey or contain the word of God, and hard for me to believe you read all that and still reject the King James Bible as the word of God.

Are you sure you actually read those posts and didn't just respond to bits and pieces?

SaintJoeNow said:

It's hard for me to believe you read all that and still support modern versions as books which convey or contain the word of God, and hard for me to believe you read all that and still reject the King James Bible as the word of God.

Are you sure you actually read those posts and didn't just respond to bits and pieces?

Click to expand...

No more explanations will be given to you for now Joe, because you have already said you don't read the responses, and you have verified that over and over. I will see what Jack has to say, as he actually interacts with what people write.

It's amazing to me how anybody can ignore the facts presented in Post 467 and support the NIV translation of Psalm 12:6-7.

and then they have to answer questions posed in Post 471....and it makes my head spin to see the spinning used in answering those things.

The faith of God is simple, so a child can understand. When two things say different things, one of them is false and should be discarded as untrustworthy. All modern versions can be proven false. Please tell me your favorite modern version so we can look at the changes and deletions (a few of the thousands, anyways) so we can see they are falsified imposters of God's word.

SaintJoeNow said:

It's amazing to me how anybody can ignore the facts presented in Post 467 and support the NIV translation of Psalm 12:6-7.

and then they have to answer questions posed in Post 471....and it makes my head spin to see the spinning used in answering those things.

The faith of God is simple, so a child can understand. When two things say different things, one of them is false and should be discarded as untrustworthy. All modern versions can be proven false. Please tell me your favorite modern version so we can look at the changes and deletions (a few of the thousands, anyways) so we can see they are falsified imposters of God's word.

Click to expand...

Jack has more patience than me. I don't see much point in arguing with people who deny evidence.

SaintJoeNow said:

You hate post 467, don't you? You hate it so much you are trying to send me to Hell for using it. That's not nice.

Click to expand...

I hate lies in posts on Christian message boards. Moreover, I believe that the Bible tells the truth about liars.

SaintJoeNow said:

How did you like the part about the NIV being published by the same publisher who published the Satanic Bible?

Click to expand...

I learned about this the same day that I learned that Harper Collins purchased Zondervan in 1988. In 2012, Harper Collins completed its purchase of Thomas Nelson, Inc., one of the leading publishers of the KJV. So now we finally have the truth. The NIV and the KJV are satanic Bibles!

SaintJoeNow said:

How did you like the part about Wescott and Hort and the cultic affiliations connected to those translators who are held by modern version supporters to be godly men?

Click to expand...

The truth is the truth regardless of the heart or disposition of the man who speaks it or writes it, and regardless of the heart or disposition of the publisher. Conversely, falsehoods and wrong interpretations are falsehoods and wrong interpretations regardless of the heart or disposition of the man who speaks them or writes them, and regardless of the heart or disposition of the publisher. Moreover, the truth is the truth whether it is taught by a conservative or liberal Christian. The very same thing applies to falsehoods and wrong interpretations.

SaintJoeNow said:

Jack has more patience than me. I don't see much point in arguing with people who deny evidence.

Click to expand...

Then how much less point is there in talking with someone who says they already know what you will say and doesn't read your posts?

Here is what Jack asked for in the OP:

Jack Koons said:

In the thread pertaining to the poll for the "KJV Only", I began to engage in a good discussion with Tall73 about the "preservation" of the scriptures. I would, with Tall73's permission, like to continue this discussion.

I would like to make a few brief comments:

1) It is my opinion (whatever that is worth), that a discussion of this nature must begin, and maintain a particular level of professionalism.

2) We (the members of this forum), must always remember that we are ambassadors for Christ, hence, it is His testimony we harm, when we lack to represent Him in a positive way.

3) Each of us are indeed a product of our education, at least to some degree; and since we do not all share the se education, there is bound to be disagreement. May we disagree gracefully.

4) Finally, may we all consider what we may learn one from another, that all might be edified. I am a firm believer in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures, I hope we can discuss this issue in a way that honors our Heaveny Father.

Jack

Click to expand...

Can you honestly say you have tried to comply with point 4? You have said from the outset you can't learn anything from others, you have said now that you don't bother to read what folks say, and you have said that you already know what folks will say.

Jack is not only more patient, he is actually discussing the topic. I am learning more of his position. That was the stated goal.

The doctrine of preservation is one that is receiving much attention today, and has become as controversial as the doctrine of inspiration was fifty years ago, and will, in all probability have the same effect on Christendom. In the near future, the lines of demarcation will be more boldly drawn, and a new separatism will develop around the proper understanding of the doctrine of Bible preservation. Those who decide on a preserved Scripture and believe that the local "church of the living God [is] the pillar and ground of the truth" will be the fundamentalists of tomorrow, and those who continue to hold to the idea of a higher "critical" text, and the authority of so-called "scholars" to determine what is, and what is not the Word of God, will go the way of Liberal and Modernistic Christendom, into decline and eclipse. We are already seeing a tendency toward this decline in many of the Christian Colleges that were great preacher training schools in the past, but are now turning out more accountants or other professionals then they are preachers.

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (3/4)

One thing we as Christians must never forget is that God the Holy Spirit has the same power to preserve His Word as He had to inspire it. If God could inspire His Word, but has not been able to preserve it for us, intact, then He is not the Omnipotent God of Creation, but a mere imposter, posing and posturing in cheap imitation of the Almighty. That does not describe my great God and Savior! My God is able to do all that He has promised, without exception!

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (3/4)

SaintJoeNow said:

When two things say different things, one of them is false and should be discarded as untrustworthy.

Click to expand...

Current Cambridge and Oxford editions* of the KJV do not only update the spelling and grammar of the 1611 editions; they also make changes that affect the meaning of the text. Who was inspired—the translators who made numerous mistakes, or the editors who corrected more than 400 errors in 1613, or the editors who corrected still more errors in 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769?

Listed below are changes that have been brought to my attention. There may be many more of them.

Genesis 19:21 concerning this thing > concerning this thing also
Genesis 23:18 gates > gate
Genesis 39:1 hand > hands
Genesis 39:16 her lord > his lord
Genesis 47:6 any man > any men
Exodus 15:25 he made a statute > he made for them a statute
Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels > thirty shekels of silver
Exodus 23:13 names > name
Exodus 35:29 hands > hand
Leviticus 2:4 it shall be an unleavened cake > it shall be unleavened cakes
Leviticus 10:14 sacrifice > sacrifices
Leviticus 19:34 shall be as one born > shall be unto you as one born
Leviticus 20:11 shall be put to death > shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 25:23 were strangers > are strangers
Leviticus 26:23 be reformed by these things > be reformed by me by these things
Leviticus 26:40 the iniquity of their fathers > their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers
Numbers 4:40 houses > house
Numbers 7:55 charger of an hundred and thirty shekels > charger of the weight of an hundred and thirty shekels
Deuteronomy 5:29 keep my commandments > keep all my commandments
Joshua 3:11 covenant, even the Lord > covenant of the Lord
Joshua 7:14 households [2nd occurrence] > household
Ruth 3:15 and he went into the citie. > and she went into the city.
1 Samuel 18:27 David arose, he and his men > David arose and went, he and his men
1 Samuel 28:7 servant > servants
2 Samuel 16:8 to thy mischief >in thy mischief
2 Kings 11:10 in the temple. > in the temple of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:21 this book of the Covenant > the book of this covenant
1 Chronicles 7:5 were men of might > were valiant men of might
1 Chronicles 11:15 of David > to David
2 Chronicles 28:22 this > his
Job 33:22 His soul draweth near > Yea, his soul draweth near
Psalm 141:9 snare > snares
Proverbs 7:21 With much fair speech > With her much fair speech
Ecclesiastes 2:16 shall be forgotten > shall all be forgotten
Song of Solomon 4:6 mountains > mountain
Song of Solomon 5:12 water > waters
Isaiah 34:11 The cormorant and the bittern > But the cormorant and the bittern
Isaiah 49:13 heaven > heavens
Isaiah 49:13 God > the LORD
Isaiah 57:8 and made a covenant and made thee a covenant
Jeremiah 4:6 standards >standard
Jeremiah 31:14 be satisfied with goodness > be satisfied with my goodness
Jeremiah 31:18 thou art the Lord my God > for thou art the Lord my God
Jeremiah 51:12 watchman > watchmen
Jeremiah 51:30 their > her
Ezekiel 6:8 that he may > that ye may
Ezekiel 12:19 violence of them > violence of all them
Ezekiel 24:5 him > them
Ezekiel 24:7 poured it upon the ground > poured it not upon the ground
Ezekiel 48:8 they > ye
Daniel 3:15 the midst of a fiery furnace > the midst of a burning fiery furnace
Daniel 12:13 the lot > thy lot
Joel 3:13 the wickedness > their wickedness
Amos 8:3 Temples > temple
Zechariah 7:7 of the plain > and the plain
Malachi 3:4 offerings > offering
Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? > Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 14:9 othes > oath's
Matthew 16:16 Thou art Christ > Thou art the Christ
Mark 6:26 othes > oath's
John 11:3 sister > sisters
John 12:22 told > tell
John 15:20 the Lord > his Lord
Acts 5:34 a doctor of law > a doctor of the law
Romans 14:10 we shall all stand > for we shall all stand
1 Corinthians 10:28 The earth is the Lords > for the earth is the Lord's
1 Corinthians 12:28 helps in governments > helps, governments
1 Corinthians 15:6 And > After
Philippians 4:6 request > requests
2 Thessalonians 2:14 the Lord Jesus Christ > our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 1:4 rather than edifying > rather than godly edifying
2 Timothy 4:8 unto them also > unto all them also
Hebrews 3:10 hearts > heart
Hebrews 12:1 run with patience unto the race > run with patience the race
1 John 5:12 he that hath not the Son, hath not life. > he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.
Revelation 13:6 dwelt > dwell

*Even the current Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV differ from each other—even doctrinally at Jeremiah 34:16,

Jer. 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (Cambridge KJV)

Jer. 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. (Oxford KJV)

Let's look deeper into the identity of the texts.

The Old Testament Texts.

In 1516, Daniel Bomberg published a text of the Old Testament under the name "First Rabbinic Bible." This text was followed in 1524 by a second edition that had been compiled from ancient manuscripts by a Hebrew scholar and converted Jewish Rabbi named Abraham Ben Chayyim. Today this work is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and is the text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The word "masoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "mesor" meaning traditional. The Masoretes were the scribes that were given the responsibility of guarding and keeping the text of the Old Testament, and keep it well they surely did, as we shall soon see.

The Ben Chayyim Masoretic text was the uncontested text of the Old Testament for over four hundred years. The Ben Chayyim text was used in the first two editions of "Biblia Hebraica" by Rudolph Kittel, usually referred to as BHK, published in 1906 and 1912. However, in 1937, Kittel changed his Hebrew text from the Ben Chayyim to the Ben Asher text.

The Ben Asher text was based on a text call the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a; also called simply L), which was dated around 1008 A. D. Using the peculiar logic of that day, which believed that older must always be better, Kittel published his 1937 edition based on this "older" text. His 1937 edition had about 20,000 changes (most of them minor, but changes nevertheless) from the Ben Chayyim text. Both texts are still referred to as "Masoretic," so care must be taken as to which text is being referred to. It had apparently not dawned on Kittel that the Ben Asher version was based on very few minor manuscripts similar to B19a, while the Ben Chayyim text followed the vast majority of the manuscripts available. Why would Kittel throw out the evidence provided by the vast majority of manuscripts to follow only a small minority of texts? May I suggest, very carefully, that profit may have been the motive? Kittle had not published a major work for many, many years, he was growing older, funds for his retirement were low, and he was living in the rapidly fading glow of past glory. One final work would not only propel him back into the limelight of scholarly recognition, but would provide the funds for his impending retirement. He found a large and receptive market in the rapidly growing modernist camp that had grown to hate the traditional texts of both the Old and New Testaments.

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)