User Tag List

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 358

Thread: Companion Thread for KJV only debate

  1. #16
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,625
    Thanks
    2,612
    Thanked 2,415 Times in 1,506 Posts

    Blog Entries
    141
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2031261
    Quote Originally Posted by daveme7 View Post
    What is inerrancy?
    Let's first clarify the distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.

    Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement.
    Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording.

    Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.

    Copies of Scripture can certainly be inerrant. For example, we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist.


    The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

    So, when I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.

    The bottom line is that the viable textual variants that exist, i.e., the variants that may legitimately represent the original wording, in many manuscripts we have in our possession do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  2. #17
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, ID
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    This thread is designed so that those interested can discuss the One on One debate between Brandplucked and themuzicman entitled: Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?

    If the question is, "Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?". then the answer is NO!

    But if we rephrase it, we can then ask, " Is the King James Bible the best English translation?", then you can confidently say, YES!

    The King James Version is based on the most superior Greek Text, utilizing the most superior philosophy.

    Is the King Jimmy absolutely PERFECT in it's translation from the Greek and Hebrew? Not Absolutely Perfect. Even though there are NO ERRORS, there are a few places where the English language has shifted enough to create a question to its interpretation.

    [Addendum - Folks, you can't go wrong with the King James Bible. It's as literal as they come! I remember in Greek class doing my translations and complaining that it sounds too much like the King Jimmy. My professor just smiled and said that it should, because the King James Bible translators were freakish about literalism. When I say that there are questions to interpretations, I am referencing where the English language has shifted over the past 400 years. There are no errors in the KJV and is the best English translation.]

    Though I personally believe that the King Jimmy is the best English Translation we have at the present, it cannot supersede the authority of the original languages. Some people believe this (which is called Secondary Inspiration) and it is not biblical.



    The following is a paper I gave out in one of my recent classes:

    Which English Translation Is Most Accurate?
    We are not asking, which English Translation is easiest, most popular, or which one you are most “comfy” with.

    One of the most common questions asked by English speaking Christians today is, “Which translation is best?” The question then needs to be begged, “what do you mean by best”?
    • Which translation is easiest to read?
    • Which translation is most popular?
    • Which translation does my church and pastor use?
    • Which translation am I most comfy with?
    In Bible colleges across the country, many Bible and Ministry Majors ask the question, “Which Greek Text is Superior?”
    There are only two Greek Texts:
    • The Critical Text (Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS4)
    o Scientifically Compiled
    o Focuses on what has been deemed as the “Oldest” Texts
    o Many portions are still in Dispute
    • The Traditional Text (Textus Receptus)
    But the question must be boiled down even further. The Christian must ask the one question, “On what will I base my Authority of Scripture on?”
    • Does man have the level of intellect and spiritual insight to truly determine what God has really said?
    • Did God actively and dynamically preserve His Word throughout history?
    Liberal Scholars (and those who mimic liberal scholasticism) will teach their churches that the modern English Translations are based upon the oldest and most superior Greek Texts. What they don’t tell you is that it is the liberal scholars who have defined what they deemed as “most superior” and oldest.

    When referring to the actual Greek Texts, they snub the Traditional Text by claiming to use scientific methods in determining the correct readings. What they don’t tell you is that it is the liberal scholars (namely Westcott and Hort, who were extremely biased against the Traditional Text) who had established these basic scientific methods.


    When the arguments are stripped away and the very foundation of the argument is exposed, the singular question is brought into the light,
    “ON WHAT WILL I BASE MY AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE ON?”

    IMPORTANT NOTE: We are not asking if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, but rather we are begging the question with regards to the physical authority of Scripture!
    • Was the Canon of Scriptures determined by the Early Church Councils, or
    Do Christians recognize what God had ordained as being canonical?

    • When it comes to preserving the Scriptures, does man have the intellect to determine the Text, or
    Do Christians recognize what God has Himself dynamically preserved throughout history?
    Your view on this one issue will ultimately determine which Bible Translation you will use!
    Matthew 24:35
    35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
    Proverbs 30:5
    5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
    Isaiah 40:8
    8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
    1 Peter 1:24-25
    24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
    25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever....
    Do you believe this is so, or not?
    Hebrews 11:6
    6 But without faith it is impossible to please him….
    It’s not a matter of the Physical,
    It’s not a matter of the Intellectual,
    It all boils down to the Spiritual!

    --- End of Document ---

    Folks, the philosophy will not only determine your Greek Text, but how you view Scripture as a whole. If you believe that intellectualism is superior than revelation, then you will easily be swayed by someone who has a lot of letters after their name and is popular.

    For instance, Bart Ehrman is a well recognized Bible Scholar, yet he has come out and publicly claimed to no longer have faith in Scripture. According to Scripture this man is an apostate and should be dismissed from all true Christian venues. Bruce Metzger repeatedly wrote that even the original autographs contained errors (read his commentaries). Are these men saved? Who knows?!?! That's not the issue. The issue is, does their faith subjugate their intellectualism or does their intellect determine their faith?

    WHAT YOU DETERMINE WILL EFFECT EVERYTHING IN YOUR MINISTRY, AND WILL HAVE ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES.

    The decision is yours.

  3. #18
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, ID
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    This addition into Scripture comes from one family of translation.
    Family?

    Where, might I ask, did you get this concept?

    No need to answer, I read Snort's Introduction (oops, I mean Hort's Introduction). Fenton John Anthony Hort had almost a demonic hatred for God's Word and refused to recognize the authority of Scripture (in his Introduction, FJA Hort states that the Scriptures should be treated on the same level as a work of Shakespeare). Even though he was specifically commanded by the Royal Bible Society to only provide an English Revision, he ignored their request and rewrote the Greek Text in his own interpretation.

    By cataloging manuscripts (MSS) into families, Hort was able to intellectually boil down the vast amount of MSS into one single family (Byzantine Family) and thus reduce its dominance. The problem that even liberal scholars don't want to touch is the fact that MSS cross families more than they want to admit publicly. Rather than point this out, they blindly swallow what Hort gave them and not say a word.

    Anything that comes from FJA Hort needs to be greatly questioned.

  4. #19
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the son of man has nowhere to lay his head
    Posts
    84
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by johncalvinhall View Post
    If the question is, "Is the King James Bible God's preserved and inerrant words?". then the answer is NO!

    Is the King Jimmy absolutely PERFECT in it's translation from the Greek and Hebrew? Not Absolutely Perfect. Even though there are NO ERRORS,
    I'm not sure I understand your statement. Not absolutely perfect, No errors?

    Here is an error or two in the translation...

    Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell [# 86 Gr. Hades]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

    Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell [# 1067 Gr. Geenna] fire:

    2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell [# 5020 Gr. Tartaroo], and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

    One English word - Hell - is used to translate three different Greek words: Hades, Geenna, Tartaroo. If the KJV translators were 'freakish' about literalism, then why did they translate a geological place, Geenna, with the same word? I guess it could of come from ignorance but these men were not ignorant. It is said about one of these men [citation needed] that if he were at the Tower of Babel during the confusion of tongues he knew so many languages that he would of been able to prevent the dispersion.
    “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” Colossians 2:9-10 NKJV

  5. #20
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68553

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by bereancam_46151 View Post
    That the early church father's write notes of the trinity in the margins shouldn't suprise anyone, esp. after Nicea. If there were 3rd century evidence as you state, Athanasius surely would have used this passage in defense of the Arian heresy. He did not because it was not there. The passage would be a vital piece of Scripture to use in the defense of the Word, wouldn't you say? [/COLOR][/FONT]

    Or is the a revelation of some kind that the rest of God's children have missed out on?

    So the issue is? Not to worry, the fallibility of man in his err's is corrected by God's infallibility when it comes to the transmission of HIS Word. His Words are not stopped nor muted by errors of men.

    Ah, maybe it should be left as your personal preference to read the King James, and not hold other believers in bondage to your fanatical myths. The Word of God in His Holy Scriptures are read by millions in all languages, and they too have the claim of being saved, just like anyone else through FAITH in Jesus Christ.

    Sorry Will, I will not bow to your golden calf ideals. Just think, this is just about an addition to a verse. Better get ready for muz.

    Hi bc. Just a couple of points. You tell us that Athanasius didn't use the verse against the Arian heresy, yet John Gill clearly says he did. You also ignore all the evidence long before the 15th century. Maybe you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills just a tad. Read the whole article I posted very slowly, and then come back with your response if you wish.

    Here is part of the article you apparently missed, or at least disagree with.

    A Trail of Evidence

    We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

    Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

    200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

    250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

    By the way, I do not question the fact that God uses imperfect Bibles to bring His people to faith in Christ. It should also be pointed out that the vast majority of all those people you referred to who believed in the Saviour before 1611 also had 1 John 5:7 in their Bibles! - unlike the versions that began to flood the English speaking market in 1881 and began to undermine the faith of the saints.

    Will K

  6. #21
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68553

    Mr. Religion and his elusive 'inerrant bible'

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Let's first clarify the distinction between verbal inspiration and inerrancy.

    Inerrancy relates to the truth contained in a statement.
    Inspiration relates to the Scriptures' wording.

    Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.

    Copies of Scripture can certainly be inerrant. For example, we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist.


    The Evangelical Theological Society affirms: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”

    So, when I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences.

    The bottom line is that the viable textual variants that exist, i.e., the variants that may legitimately represent the original wording, in many manuscripts we have in our possession do not jeopardize any salvific doctrine.
    Mr. Religion. You give us several statements that are completely false. You tell us that "Only the original text of Scripture is inspired.", yet The Bible says that what Timothy had in his home was the holy scriptures and that the scripture is given by inspiration of God. Whom should I believe, your statement or the Bible's?

    You also tell us: "we have sufficient data in the extant witnesses (manuscripts, etc.) to construct the original New Testament in virtually every place. In other words, the original can be recovered from the materials that exist."

    Oh really? Would this be the N.T. according to versions like the NKJV which has some 45 entire verses in its text that the RSV omits, or the NIV that omits 17 entire verses plus another couple thousand other words besides? And that is not even mentioning the scores upon scores of places where none of your modern versions follow the same texts in the Old Testament?

    Maybe you missed these quotes from some of your modern version buddies. Look. There is even one from 1998 by Mr. Epps.

    The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.

    As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."

    H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."

    Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."

    "...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).

    "As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

    Lord willing, I'll get back you you on your statement that "ONLY the original text of Scripture IS inspired".

    Will K

  7. #22
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68553

    Mr. Religion's imaginary Scripture

    Mr. Religion. Your opening quote is more than a little confusing.

    You said: "Only the original text of Scripture IS inspired". What do you mean by this? If you are referring to the originals, we all know these do not exist, so you cannot accurately speak of them in the present tense IS inspired, as though you had a copy of them on your desk. You should say "WERE inspired".

    You also say: "I hold the original autographs of Scriptures to be inerrant (and I do claim this), I claim that when all the facts are known and proper interpretations are applied, the Scriptures are completely true in all that they assert or affirm, including doctrine, morality, social, life, or physical sciences."

    There you go again with that "original autographs" thingy. Do you have these in your possession? Have you ever seen them?

    If however you are referring to the original texts (and I do not mean "the" Greek nor "the" Hebrew, since no such animal exists) then where are these texts to be found today? You never tell us.

    You also seem to imply by your statement that ONLY the original text IS inspired that it would be impossible for a translation to be the inspired words of God. Now, where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible. Consider the following.


    Can a Translation be Inspired?

    I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

    Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

    It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book, and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

    So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, and it does so many times.

    In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

    A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

    God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

    Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

    In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

    If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

    Brother James Melton has written a very good article on why he believes the King James Bible is the true word of God. In his article he mentions what the true Holy Bible says about the word "to translate". (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html)

    Brother Melton writes: The words "translate" and "translated" occur three times in the Bible, and GOD is the Translator each time. The scholars insist that the KJV cannot be infallible, because it is "only a translation." Do you suppose that such scholars have checked II Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, and Hebrews 11:5 to see what GOD has to say about translating?

    In II Samuel 3:10 we are told that it was God Who translated Saul's kingdom to David. We are told in Colossians 1:13 that Christians have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and Hebrews 11:5 tells us that God translated Enoch that he should not see death. God was the One doing the translating each time. What's the point? The point is that a translation CAN be perfect, if God is involved in the translating.

    When the New Testament writers would quote the Old Testament (Mt. 1:23; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; I Cor. 2:9; Gal. 3:13, etc.), they had to TRANSLATE from Hebrew to Greek, because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but THEY wrote in Greek. So, if a translation cannot be infallible, then EVEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE "ORIGINAL GREEK" ISN'T INFALLIBLE, because it contains translations from the Hebrew text! - (end of quotes from brother Melton. See his article. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html It is very good!)

    Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

    " 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. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

    It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

    So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.


    Will K

  8. #23
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Twin Falls, ID
    Posts
    42
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by griffinsavard View Post
    One English word - Hell - is used to translate three different Greek words: Hades, Geenna, Tartaroo. If the KJV translators were 'freakish' about literalism, then why did they translate a geological place, Geenna, with the same word? I guess it could of come from ignorance but these men were not ignorant. It is said about one of these men [citation needed] that if he were at the Tower of Babel during the confusion of tongues he knew so many languages that he would of been able to prevent the dispersion.

    When the Fullers came from the Isle of White, they landed in America.
    When the Halls came from Sweden, they landed in America.
    When the Bingstens came over from Sweden, they landed in America.

    Were all of my ancestors living in one specific location? No. The Fullers landed in Massachusetts, the Halls wound up in Pennsylvania, and the Bingstens wound up in Kentucky (?).

    They all came to America.

    When the term Hell is used, it's definition is more encompassing than what others would prefer. Were they wrong? No. Could they have been more specific? Possibly.

  9. #24
    Journeyman PaulMcNabb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is true Scripture

    Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

    Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD,
    Wrong. 1 John 5:7 is almost certainly NOT original.

    Brandplucked, your own post shows it clearly.

    The argument is that the Johannine Comma appeared sometime in the mid-3rd century and was later incorporated into the text of 1 John. Your list of early references to it glaringly shows this. ALL writers prior to the mid 3rd century never mentioned the Johannine Comma during their vigorous debates over the Godhead. The absolute best proof text (and only proof text) of the orthodox Trinity was unknown to ALL early Christians, and then gradually started being "found" several centuries after the New Testament epistle of 1 John was written.

    This is one of those near certainties in regard to the biblical texts and manuscripts. The evidence against the Johannine Comma as original to the text is overwhelming and without contradiction.

    But we've been this route before...

  10. #25
    Rookie RC_Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Hi bc. Just a couple of points. You tell us that Athanasius didn't use the verse against the Arian heresy, yet John Gill clearly says he did. You also ignore all the evidence long before the 15th century. Maybe you should sharpen your reading comprehension skills just a tad. Read the whole article I posted very slowly, and then come back with your response if you wish.

    Here is part of the article you apparently missed, or at least disagree with.

    A Trail of Evidence

    We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

    Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

    200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

    250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

    By the way, I do not question the fact that God uses imperfect Bibles to bring His people to faith in Christ. It should also be pointed out that the vast majority of all those people you referred to who believed in the Saviour before 1611 also had 1 John 5:7 in their Bibles! - unlike the versions that began to flood the English speaking market in 1881 and began to undermine the faith of the saints.

    Will K
    I find it so ironic that Sola Scriptura Protestants appeal to Tradition to defend what is Scriptura.

  11. #26
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68553

    1 John 5:7 and the true Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by RC_Eagle View Post
    I find it so ironic that Sola Scriptura Protestants appeal to Tradition to defend what is Scriptura.
    Let's see now. We have a Mormon who tells us his Mormon church uses the King James Bible and it has 1 John 5:7 in it, but of course this particular Mormon doesn't personally believe it is Scripture and he himself has no inerrant Bible to offer to anyone.

    And then we have a Catholic who has the bold-face temerity to criticize the use of "tradition" to support our beliefs! That's a good one coming from a Catholic. No "tradition" in that church, right? ;-)

    By the way, the Latin Clementine Catholic bible has the verse you are calling into doubt as well as the Douay-Rheims and the more modern Douay 1950.

    Here is the Latin Clementine - guess what, it reads just like the true Bible

    7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.

    "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

    All of grace,

    Will K

  12. #27
    Rookie RC_Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    And then we have a Catholic who has the bold-face temerity to criticize the use of "tradition" to support our beliefs! That's a good one coming from a Catholic. No "tradition" in that church, right? ;-)

    You apparently did not understand what was involved in the irony. I did not criticize the use of Tradition to support your beliefs, nor did I deny that Catholics hallow Tradition. Quite the contrary! What I am criticizing is the inconsistency between maintaining Sola Scriptura (bad) and simultaneously appealing to tradition outside of Scripture (good) to establish the validity of your version of Scripture.

  13. #28
    Veteran brandplucked's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    68553

    God's Inspired Book - the King James Bible

    Quote Originally Posted by RC_Eagle View Post
    You apparently did not understand what was involved in the irony. I did not criticize the use of Tradition to support your beliefs, nor did I deny that Catholics hallow Tradition. Quite the contrary! What I am criticizing is the inconsistency between maintaining Sola Scriptura (bad) and simultaneously appealing to tradition outside of Scripture (good) to establish the validity of your version of Scripture.

    Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.

    Will K

  14. #29
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Hi Wil,

    You said:A Trail of Evidence

    We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

    Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

    200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

    250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

    What is the resource for these statements? IN other words, where do you find the article and what resources did the author use? It is usually customary when citing a resource which cites a resource-you utilize both resources(unless your name is G.A. Riplinger which often cites other KJVO books to show how someone else is wrong-borrowing, parroting someone else's opinion).

    You also said:

    A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

    God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

    If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

    Seems like you make a good argument for modern day translations!

    You go around and keep asking what people say what is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God is. Yet, you decline to define what you mean by inerrant, infallible, and inspiration means.

  15. #30
    Rookie RC_Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by brandplucked View Post
    Interesting. Well, the only things I used to defend 1 John 5:7 as being authentic Scripture was not "tradition" but history. Cyprian does quote the Scripture in question way back in 250 A.D. (long before anything we have in the extant Greek copies) and says "it is written" and Athanasius does use it in 350 when disputing against the Arian heresy. These things are not strictly speaking called "tradition" but historical facts.
    Citation of the Fathers of the Church is precisely among the things that Catholics consider appeals to Tradition. For that matter, the very making of an official translation of the Scriptures, such as the Vulgate, is an act of Tradition. This is how the truth of Jesus Christ is preserved over the course of the ages by the Holy Spirit.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us