Is all the Bible scripture?

Status
Not open for further replies.
... is called a "heretic" by people who claim to believe that the Bible is inerrant

Show of hands: Who said Ed was a heretic?

ummmm....

waiting......

I see. Me either.

At least those who claim the Bible is not inerrant believe that they are all flawed. Those who claim the Bible is inerrant believe that they are all, lets say preserved.

You say, No only my Bible is right so the rest of you by default have an invalid faith. I dont' call that herecy, I call it arogance. Say you don't believe that if you wish. That is what the KJVO position presents.

We are right.
You are wrong.
Only we have access to the truth's of God.

A remarkable resembelance to the Papacy.
 
Upvote 0

edjones

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2002
699
0
✟1,549.00
Is the KJV "Inspired Scripture"?

Often it is stated that the King James Bible can't be "inspired scripture" because copies and translations can't be "inspired" - only the "originals" are inspired. Even some supposed KJV advocates will only go so far as to claim that the KJV is "preserved", but not inspired. Of course, others claim neither preservation, nor inspiration for the Authorized Bible.

INSPIRATION:
Let's look at what the word of God says about inspiration and preservation:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Scripture" is what God gave by "inspiration". The question is "What is the scripture?"

A copy or a translation CAN indeed be "inspired scripture". Just look at the previous verse:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It was what Timothy had since childhood. It was not the "original manuscripts", but it was "inspired scripture".

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Did they steal the "scriptures" from Timothy? No, obviously scriptures, which are inspired by definition, can be pure copies.

Acts 8:32 & 35 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Did the Ethiopian had the original autograph of Isaiah? Not a chance.

Exo 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Uh oh! There go the "originals". Even the replacement "original" tablets were not scripture. Moses COPIED (maybe translated) them into the Pentateuch. The 10 Commandments in the "original" were a third-generation copy. Then in the "original" New Testament, Jesus and Paul quoted and translated them! Their words, when referring to the Commandments in the "original" NT, were fourth-generation translations of copies, but still "inspired scripture".

Prov 25:1 These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.

Jer 36:32 Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.

NT quotes of OT passages are Greek translations of Hebrew. Nearly EVERY WORD spoken by Jesus (Aramaic or Hebrew) was translated into Greek.

PRESERVATION:
What exactly is it that is preserved? Logically it is the inspiration of scripture that is preserved.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Matt 24:35 & Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The "originals" are gone! If God was talking about them, He FAILED (or LIED)!

The scripture cannot be the "winnowed sum of all the texts", because they differ. We must have something 100% certain to stand on as authoritative from God. Otherwise, we do not know for certain what parts are accurate and what parts are errors. We'd have no absolute authority beyond our own opinion.

Prov 30:5 EVERY WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Deut 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my WORDS, hath one that judgeth him: the WORD that I have spoken, the same shall JUDGE him in the last day.

Which "Bible" is the one in which "EVERY WORD" can be claimed? The Greek? There are 5000 Greek portions? The Majority Text? Which one? The Textus Receptus? Which one? The MT and TR are reasonably "accurate" and agreeable, but not identical. Most "reliable" are the TR texts. They are what the King James was translated from, but even they are not absolute. There are at least six TR texts Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, Colineaus, Beza, Scrivener. There are several editions of each, about two dozen total. They are very close, but not identical, ("***" & "son" interchanged, among other differences).

Could be that one of them is the pure scripture in Greek, or could be they came from the pure Greek which is no longer extant. Perhaps the pure Greek is somewhere with the "originals"?

There are two lines of Bible texts, one good (Antioch) one corrupt (Alexandria):

KING'S Lineage: Very little dispute on OT Masoretic. Disparity is in the Greek.

Alexandria, Egypt (Africa)

Egypt represents sin cursed world system, arch-enemy to Israel. God called Moses, Jacob, Israel, Joseph's Bones, and Jesus Christ, OUT of Egypt.

Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. (1st mention)

Acts 27:6 And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy; and he put us therein. (Wreck)

Acts 28:11 And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. (occultic)

Adamantius Origen's heretical allegorical school was in Alexandria. The principle Alexandrian texts are spurious at best, Satanic perversions at worst. Vaticanus was found stuffed in the Vatican library where it had been for 1500 years. Even the old Catholics rejected it!, Sinaiticus was found in a trash can, where it belonged. Only 1% of the 5000 portions are Alexandrian and they disagree w/each other, as well as the Antioch texts. One is missing Revelation, both are missing large portions, but add apocryphal books. Westcott & Hort propagated Origen's' corruptions.

ALL English versions, except ONE (you get ONE guess which ONE), use Alexandrian texts. Even ones that claim TR, use Alex. when changing. Nkjv also uses Kittle's Samaritan OT.

Antioch: Syria (Middle-East, Byzantine)

Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: (1st mention)

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Acts 15:22-23 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Big difference between Alexandria and Antioch. ONLY ONE English Bible comes from the Antioch line, guess which one?

Certainly there is faith involved, but the facts point to no other possible version but the Authorized King James Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
66
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Nowhere does the text imply she was in a coma. Jesus said that she "sleeps" which was a euphemism for death. If you read John 11:11-15 in the story of Lazarus' death you will see Jesus use the same wording :

Jesus said:

Luk 8:52
And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth. AKJV - Jesus denied that she was dead - then he says that she sleeps.

Now they were all weeping and lamenting for her; but he said "Stop weeping, for she has not died, but is asleep" NAS - Jesus denied that she was dead, then he says that she sleeps.

And they were all weeping and bewailing her. But he said, Do not weep. She did not die, but is sleeping . Literal

were weeping and all, and bewailing her. He but said, Not do weep; not she died, but is-sleeping . Word by word from the Greek
Jesus denied that she was dead - then he says that she sleeps.

If Jesus was using sleep as a euphemism for dead - YOUR claim, Apologist, that makes it "She did not die but she is dead" You mapped the passage where Jesus said that Lazarus sleeps and then explains that by "Lazarus sleeps" he means that Lazarus is dead onto an entirely different circumstance where the concept of "sleep" is used BY CONTRAST with being dead. The wording is nothing like the same.


Mar 5:39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. AKJV - Jesus denied that she was dead - then he says she sleeps.


Jesus is the resurection and the life, so in His eyes Jairus' daughter was only asleep. That is the context. There is no contradiction here. You were saying? Apologist?

And while we are on the subject of contradictions regarding this particular event, (and I suggest that this time you actually read what is written instead of jumping to hasty conclusions) Here - I'll post the quotes so that you don't have to go to all the effort of clicking the links....

Mar 5:23 And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: [I pray thee], come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. .

Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. .
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
66
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
ALMOST any time that I have asked a KJV onlyer to show me texts that differ King James to any other version of their choice (almost invariably they will choose NIV - surprise surprise. not.) - and on the rare times that they have actually done so:

the difference has been purely in the imagination of the KJ Onlyer, 90%
there has actually been a variation of MEANING of the text, but that difference has been negligible 5%
there has been a variation which is significant enough to constitute a contradiction; 5%

The percentages are, of course, ball park figures.
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
66
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

To say that John was Elijah would posit re-incarnation. He was conceived in the usual way - resurrection is precluded.
However, Jesus's statements might mean that John was THE Elijah who was to restore all things (prepare the way) .... That would make John a prophet after the order of Elijah. I draw no particular conclusions either way - not enough data.
 
Upvote 0

edjones

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2002
699
0
✟1,549.00
Names of Christ and Titles of Deity Missing

It is the omission of Sacred Names that has often caused the first doubts over the trustworthiness of the modern translations.

Names of Deity are missing and they are missing frequently!

The totals of such omissions in two of the most popular versions The New American Standard and The New International are tabulated below. Where these Names are in combination, they have been counted separately.

.....................N.A.S.V........................... N.I.V.
Jesus .................73 .............................36
Christ ................43 .............................. 44
Lord ..................35 ..............................35
God ..................33 ...............................31
Other Names... 30................................ 30
Total Missing Names
........................214 ..............................176
 
Upvote 0

filosofer

Senior Veteran
Feb 8, 2002
4,752
290
Visit site
✟6,913.00
Faith
Lutheran
Ed,

It seems that you want to make a point about differences regarding the "Sacred Names." Rather than list statistics, which we have no way of checking, perhaps you would like to supply 2-4 examples (no need to paste in an entire list of what someone else has done from another web site). Let's say an example from the Synoptic Gospels, one from John's Gospel, one from Paul's letters [besides 1 Tim. 3:16], and one from the General Letters.
 
Upvote 0
This info came from a site that Jim gave us, on the thread "New Heaven and New Earth". These are not my words, but they are true words !


The question is, did God keep His promise? The answer is, yes. There are over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, or fragments, of the New Testament known to exist today. Of these 5,000+ manuscripts, more than 95% are in virtual agreement. This 95% majority group of manuscripts is referred to as the "Majority Text," or the "Traditional Text." The remaining 5% are called the "Minority Text," or "Alexandrian Text." [This is because virtually all of the dissenting manuscripts came from Alexandria, Egypt.] These few manuscripts, while they are generally slightly older than the "Traditional Text" manuscripts, are vastly different. They are also vastly diverse among themselves. No two are alike. No two even resemble one another in many places. In fact, the two best known Alexandrian manuscripts, which are most often used to correct the KJV [Aleph & B], differ from each other in about 9,000 places in the New Testament.

The newer translations such as the NIV come from the Alexandrian Text, or the Minority Text. The KJV comes from the Majority Text. However, the Stephen's text, is a compromise of what is said in these manuscripts, called the Majority Text. The so called "Traditional Text" is the Stephen's Text.

Even the 5,000 manuscripts are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies etc. All were hand written, and it would be very easy for errors to creep into the copies of copies. Also, when they put together the Stephen's Text, also called the Traditional Text, from which we get out KJV, there can also be errors , because they were reading hand written material to put together the Stephen's Text - Traditional Text ! !

I use exclusively my KJV, and have at my finger tips, many more translation, which are on line Bible Gateway. So it is easy for me to check out the other translations. The ability to check out other translations, is amazing to say the least. The conflict is enourmous , especially in certain places. Even the subtle differences causes my head to spin at times. Even though I can understand some of the reasoning behind using certain words or phrases to express hard to understand verses, that are within the KJV. However, I also feel, that this can cause further complications, that can cause further confusion.

Explanations pertaining to the more difficult verses in the KJV , are easily explained in a few ways.

#1 - Is the verse or verses talking about a literal or a figurative, and if you can understand which, that will explain 99 % of the answer one is looking for.

#2 - Whereever there is a figurative, there is always a literal to explain the figure , from within the Word of God !

#3 - We also need to understand the culture from which these writtings of the Word of God lived. We need to understand the customs of Israel in the OT, and the customs that were evident during the four gospels, and the customs that Paul explains about in the NT to the Church that is to be followed (Not according to the Law).

Love IN Christ - Hervey
 
Upvote 0

filosofer

Senior Veteran
Feb 8, 2002
4,752
290
Visit site
✟6,913.00
Faith
Lutheran
I use exclusively my KJV, and have at my finger tips, many more translation, which are on line Bible Gateway. So it is easy for me to check out the other translations. The ability to check out other translations, is amazing to say the least.
Except that we do not check one translation as the basis for evaluating another. Rather, we check the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. Otherwise someone could claim that the CEV or the NLT is the standard and evaluate every translation on the basis of that. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Yet, that makes as much sense to claim that the KJV is the standard and evaluate all translations on the basis of that.
 
Upvote 0
Thunderchild/filosophor

All I am expressing, is that there is a very wide range in the translations.

It is obvious, that those who put together the many different translations. Have in some way , justified within their minds, that what they have manifested, in some way , expresses the correct thoughts of God, by way of their paticualar translation.

This is the problem I have with the many differing translations !

I have a problem with their source, as well, as their private input into their own translation.

If we use "consistency" as one of the rules of thumb. I can then see how private interpretation comes into these many different translations.

Love IN Christ - Hervey
 
Upvote 0

filosofer

Senior Veteran
Feb 8, 2002
4,752
290
Visit site
✟6,913.00
Faith
Lutheran
I have a problem with their source, as well, as their private input into their own translation.

I agree, that such can be a problem. However, there are realtively few translations (Williams, Beck come to mind) that are from one individual.

The problem of "private" input is just as valid a concern for the KJV translators as for any other translation. That's why most of the major translations employ many translators, etc. from a wide variety of backgrounds to avoid "private" input. In fact, if you go to some of the translation web sites or receive some of their matieral or visit with translators, you will discover that the process guards against "private" input.
 
Upvote 0
Hi filosopher:

You said >

The problem of "private" input is just as valid a concern for the KJV translators as for any other translation. That's why most of the major translations employ many translators, etc. from a wide variety of backgrounds to avoid "private" input. In fact, if you go to some of the translation web sites or receive some of their matieral or visit with translators, you will discover that the process guards against "private" input.

Oh, I agree, and do not take my KJV as a translation without any man additions, input, alterations.

Just don't believe everything you hear ! And don't trust anyone, who says that they have guarded against any private input into their translation. It just is not true.

As we are having this conversation, I can only think about how important it is , to walk by the Spirit.

Love IN Christ - Hervey
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
66
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
It may have something to do with my field to plough filosofer - there are areas I do not venture into over much (Revelation for instance) - but I find that if there is a point that needs understanding, it usually is presented in a variety of concepts in a variety of passages which sort of "come together."

It might be too, that having worked as a vineyard hand has helped a bit too. And having an interest in Fantasy novels, which tend to have a background in feudal type systems. Not to mention that old trains and sailing ships are sort of passions. And with certain of the.........ah, of course.........my own interests and background (I think I'll take out the Wally award for that earlier statement)

There was only one that ever had me (COMPLETELY) stumped - heaping coals on a person's head. And that was explained by what some seem to think is unusual means - though I have found it to happen on quite a number of occasions. I had that bugging me for a fortnight, went to a church meeting at a place I had never been to before ... the guest speaker had been an evangelist in the back blocks of Israel ... his talk made reference to the very passage that had given me so many sleepless nights.
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
66
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Aye - the translators of the AV seem to have had a blind spot when it came to "god-fearing" and rendered it as "too superstitious" ... and it seems from the way that they have translated some passages that they may have been OSAS believers. Or so I deduce. Nothing spectacular, but even using 1611 English, I have encountered passages that seem to have had ideology behind the way they are worded. (Not that I can remember any specific passages offhand)

I have found that in trying to produce a public domain Bible, that I too have attempted to reword given verses - which seems odd, because I don't really have a bent to believe that every verse written must be wholly accurate - you would think that would act to prevent my putting my own opinions into translating - but it doesn't. (not until about the 10th rewrite, anyway.)
 
Upvote 0

edjones

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2002
699
0
✟1,549.00
Bible Correctors Described
by the AV 1611

The modern reviser and common church going correctors of the Word of God are located, identified, described, judged and condemned in the following passages, which were preserved in a text that they would not have thought to meddle with until AFTER it was declared canonical and fixed - the Old Testament in Hebrew!

The People Who Correct the Word of God!

1. They are afraid of the results of street preaching
Jer 36:10,16; John 11:47,48.

2. They resent the fact that the spoken word is for the common "man in the street"
Jer 36:6,10; Acts 5:28,40.

3. They are worried about the political consequences of a message that destroys "unity"
Jer 38:4, John 11:47,48.

4. They usually are high up in the political world, and have "mixed motives'
in regard to Bible translations
Jer 38:4,5; 36:16,20.

5. They have access to the true scriptures, as anyone else does
Jer 36:11,13; Isa 45:19.

6. They do NOT fear and tremble at the reading of the true word of God
Jer 36:24,
whereas, a real believer will every time
II Chron 34:26,27.

7. They are noted for "shorter readings" which are arrived at by cutting the verses out
Jer 36:23.

8. They have an affinity for Egypt, and trust Egyptian scholarship and military power
Jer 41:17; 42:1-4; 43:1-4

9. They are optimistic about world peace Jer 23:16,17 and speak of it frequently
Eze 13:7,16.

10. They are DEISTS in their approach to translating.
They assume that all similarities in verses are due to copying,
and that there is no such thing as a book written under inspiration,
without a reference to some other book
Jer 43:2,3
To them, God is "out of the question" when it comes to preservation,
and they feel free to handle His writings as they see fit.
Eze 8:12.

11. They can be spotted in any generation by a smooth, slick, scholarly vocabulary,
and the adoption and use of words that are not in the Bible vocabulary,
but are in "University vocabularies" of the day and age in which they live
Rom 16:18; Jude 16.

10. They are attempting to rid the world of the Word,
under the hypocritical pretense of "seeking to restore the originals"
Jer 36:17!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.