Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

Nang

TOL Subscriber
It starts with the belief that God has indeed preserved his Word.

I believe the same, but I do not believe He only does so through one publication or means.

The fact that she believes it is the KJV is secondary to the main issue.

Why do you not believe the Word is preserved?

Christians are called upon to give reason for their beliefs. The more we can learn by studying the original languages, or learn from scholars who have done so, the better we can do so.

What do you find wrong with learning such?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
You have an important question, where do you go to lay your hands on God's Word?

It is hard to hold the internet screen on biblegateway.com

I have critical text of NT Greek, interlinears, KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, etc. They all read essentially the same overall. If there is a disputed verse or passage, we have resources to understand why translators differ. One version may say God, while another says 'He', but they both refer to God and this replacement is found all over KJV. There is no conspiracy in Tim.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Christians are called upon to give reason for their beliefs. The more we can learn by studying the original languages, or learn from scholars who have done so, the better we can do so.

What do you find wrong with learning such?

Ok, so you spend 30 years becoming a Greek expert.
Which manuscripts do you study? They differ with each other, you still have to choose which is the right one.

Why not pick an English version. Study it. Believe it. Live and die with it.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
It is hard to hold the internet screen on biblegateway.com

I have critical text of NT Greek, interlinears, KJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, etc. They all read essentially the same overall. If there is a disputed verse or passage, we have resources to understand why translators differ. One version may say God, while another says 'He', but they both refer to God and this replacement is found all over KJV. There is no conspiracy in Tim.

In other words, you can always find a version somewhere to agree with what you already believe.

That, folks, is the main reason most Christians do not want to commit to one version.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Ok, so you spend 30 years becoming a Greek expert.
Which manuscripts do you study? They differ with each other, you still have to choose which is the right one.

Why not pick an English version. Study it. Believe it. Live and die with it.

Because the English might not bless the mind and soul as greatly as the original languages inspired by God.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
You need an infallible source in order to correct the KJV.
Where is it?

If all the manuscripts lack KJV reading, KJV added it from a margin note, well intentioned scribe, etc. Words have a range of meaning. A possible translation may not be the best one and is debatable on any given point. No significant belief or practice is affected by comparing all relevant verses in all credible versions. KJV made textual criticism and translation subjective decisions even disagreeing among themselves (as do moderns). When they made a weak decision that better scholarship has clarified, it is reasonable to change. Other honest versions foot note alternate readings and sometimes reasons why they went with truth vs tradition. KJV translators did it and so must we.

Those who strive for the most accurate, readable translation (that also means revisions since English changes) in every generation are to be commended, not vilified like KJVO does. The KJV translators faced the same flack because they were thought to be tampering with other loved versions.

Muslims think Arabic Qu'ran is Word of God and perfect. Mormons think BOM is perfect despite no manuscript evidence and 4000 changes from 1830 to now. They are wrong, sincerely wrong.

KJVO thinks it is perfect despite much evidence against this view. Having simplistic error is not countered by saying Peter was a fisherman (while ignoring the education of Paul). KJV is the Word of God, but it is not perfect (1/2 aint bad).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Do you believe the English is sharper than a two edged sword?

Yes, God and Satan understand English as do many believers.

The Messianic Christians who think chanting the Hebrew sounds without understanding has supernatural power are wrong like KJVO thinking reading KJV is like reading original autographs.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
If all the manuscripts lack KJV reading, KJV added it from a margin note, well intentioned scribe, etc. Words have a range of meaning. A possible translation may not be the best one and is debatable on any given point. No significant belief or practice is affected by comparing all relevant verses in all credible versions. KJV made textual criticism and translation subjective decisions even disagreeing among themselves (as do moderns). When they made a weak decision that better scholarship has clarified, it is reasonable to change. Other honest versions foot note alternate readings and sometimes reasons why they went with truth vs tradition. KJV translators did it and so must we.

Those who strive for the most accurate, readable translation (that also means revisions since English changes) in every generation are to be commended, not vilified like KJVO does. The KJV translators faced the same flack because they were thought to be tampering with other loved versions.

Muslims think Arabic Qu'ran is Word of God and perfect. Mormons think BOM is perfect despite no manuscript evidence and 4000 changes from 1830 to now. They are wrong, sincerely wrong.

KJVO thinks it is perfect despite much evidence against this view. Having simplistic error is not countered by saying Peter was a fisherman (while ignoring the education of Paul). KJV is the Word of God, but it is not perfect (1/2 aint bad).

In other words, who knows what God has said. I cannot be throughly furnished unto all good works.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Because the English might not bless the mind and soul as greatly as the original languages inspired by God.

One English word for love vs several in Greek...do the math...Greek is more detailed and nuanced, so we can benefit from mining deeper than English, though English is sufficient (but not for people who don't speak English, so where is the perfect Bible in a remote tribal language?).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
In other words, who knows what God has said. I cannot be throughly furnished unto all good works.

People read KJV only and come up with all kinds of beliefs and practices. People read KJV or ESV (same family, same philosophy) and come up with the same beliefs and practices.

You overestimate the need for a perfect KJV and underestimate how little it differs overall from other major versions. Alexandrian vs Byzantine will have differences, but the same truths are contained in either family overall.

Having one version without manuscript evidence (Qu'ran, BOM, KJV) is far more likely to create lack of assurance and possibility of error than having 1000s of MSS that may even have variants to see why we can trust an informed decision.

This is why God did not make one autocratic, cultic church (locks in heresy) or why one Bible is not perfect (He could have, but did not). The more you study the history of KJV, translation theory, textual criticism, etc., the more you see that KJVO is based on ignorance, not information. This is why I waste my breath. KJVO is the one attacking the credibility of the Bible, not those who attack KJVO (while supporting KJV).
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Which "the Bible" is your final authority?
In this case, probably NIV.

This is only when he is not reading commentaries.

Which perfect bible do you use?

It is simply begging the question and arbitrary contrary to evidence to say the KJV is the final authority. This was not God's intent nor the KJV translator's intent. They were in the position to know and would resist KJVO controversy stronger than I am.

The Greek manuscript evidence is over 99% accurate with no significant issue. Any major evangelical translation will lead to the same doctrine and practice. Just using KJV will still lead to countless interpretations as evidenced by Mormons, JWs, Westboro Baptists, etc. who use KJV.

KJVO (Riplinger, Ruckman, etc.) conspiracies about moderns removing grace, Deity of Christ, etc. can be shown to be nonsensical. The same arguments can also be used to show that KJV is weaker at times in some verses. To be consistent, you should say KJV is trying to hide truth.

We are all in the same boat. You have a simplistic error: KJV alone=Word of God alone. Proponents even say that if the underlying Greek disagrees with KJV, then the Greek must be wrong (that the KJV is based on)?! When the wealth of MSS evidence disagrees with KJV, there is no logical, biblical reason to favour KJV over the evidence.

This leaves us with the necessity of textual criticism, hermeneutics, translation theory that honors God and His Word. KJVO undermines the credibility of men of God and the Word itself. Turning it into a sect is even more odious.

That sure is a lot of words to not have KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, HIV....
 
Top