Companion Thread for KJV only debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Will is right. he cannot prove that the KJB is the only inerrant true word of God. he has proven that all modern translations are not the pure word of God in each in every single verse.
people have raised many problems concerning the KJB like easter instead of passover in Acts 12:4. but in each instance, will has given ample reason that these problems are not real and dont pose a problem.
when Jesus spoke at the synagogue in nazareth, and read from isaiah, did he have inerrant scrolls to read from? anyone?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Will is right. he cannot prove that the KJB is the only inerrant true word of God. he has proven that all modern translations are not the pure word of God in each in every single verse.
I'm sorry, but I missed this proof. He proved that there are differences between translations but thats all. If you cannot prove the KJV is the only inspired and inerrant translation, you cannot prove that the other translations are not inspired an inerrant. You can only prove they are different and that is all he has done.
people have raised many problems concerning the KJB like easter instead of
voltaire said:
passover in Acts 12:4. but in each instance, will has given ample reason that these problems are not real and dont pose a problem.
when Jesus spoke at the synagogue in nazareth, and read from isaiah, did he have inerrant scrolls to read from? anyone?
Only if He read from the original scrolls. If He read from any copy or translation it would not have been inerrant using brandplunk's definition of inerrant.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Does anyone know why Muz quoted 2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV to prove that the church was in charge of preserving the scriptures?
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
If He read from any copy or translation it would not have been inerrant using brandplunk's definition of inerrant.

Are you sure that's BRANDPLUCKED's view? I feel certain that Will would
affirm that Jesus was indeed reading from a COPY and that Jesus considered
it to be the infallible word of God.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Are you sure that's BRANDPLUCKED's view?
I never said that it was. voltaire asked a question and wanted a response from anyone. That is my answer.
SaulToPaul said:
I feel certain that Will would affirm that Jesus was indeed reading from a COPY and that Jesus considered it to be the infallible word of God.
The question was not whether Jesus considered the scroll to be the infallible word of God, but if the scroll was inerrant. Don't confuse the two as the term are not interchangeable. I would agree that Jesus considered the scrolls to be be an inspired record of Isiah's prophecies.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I never said that it was. voltaire asked a question and wanted a response from anyone. That is my answer.
The question was not whether Jesus considered the scroll to be the infallible word of God, but if the scroll was inerrant. Don't confuse the two as the term are not interchangeable. I would agree that Jesus considered the scrolls to be be an inspired record of Isiah's prophecies.

Do you think Jesus, THE WORD OF GOD, would know if it was in error or not?

:)
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Do you think Jesus, THE WORD OF GOD, would know if it was in error or not?

:)
Sure. But what error was Jesus most likely concerned about, a misspelled word or a doctrinal error, for lack of a better term. A misspelled word does not change the meaning of a sentence unless the misspelling results in a different word. That Jesus read from the scroll does not mean the scroll did not have minor errors in it. It was still accurate enough for Jesus to teach from.
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Words have meaning CM. if the NIV, KJB, NKJV, NASB, and the holman each has a different word for a verse, doesnt each word have a different meaning? dont you think God cares which word is used in a translation that is meant for the peopld of its day? if each wore conveys a different meaning, and you have 5 different modern translations for a verse, surely God didnt mean the verse to have 5 different meanings. willK has shown that in some verses these different meanings are very significant. so logic would say that either 1 translation is correct for a verse or possibly none of then carry the correct meaning. since willK has shown how the modern translations differ significantly in many different verses, he has proved at least that all of the modern translations cannot all be the true words of God in 100% of their verses.
the only way to deny that is to say that God can use 5 different words for a verse and have them all mean exactly the same thing. they may all be able to convey a general truth or p
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Continued

Continued

All 5 renderings of the same verse may be able to give the same general principle, but all 5 will never convey the EXACT meaning that God intended for the verse to have. much truth can be found by noticing small differences in the bible. STP is very good at spotting significance in detail. these details when put into the bigger picture can bring out amazing truth that no one has considered before. the KJB has detail that is different than other translations that so far provides support to the MAD position. this is one reason why i favor the KJB.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Words have meaning CM. if the NIV, KJB, NKJV, NASB, and the holman each has a different word for a verse, doesnt each word have a different meaning? dont you think God cares which word is used in a translation that is meant for the peopld of its day? if each wore conveys a different meaning, and you have 5 different modern translations for a verse, surely God didnt mean the verse to have 5 different meanings. willK has shown that in some verses these different meanings are very significant. so logic would say that either 1 translation is correct for a verse or possibly none of then carry the correct meaning.
Reasonably true up to this point.

voltaire said:
since willK has shown how the modern translations differ significantly in many different verses, he has proved at least that all of the modern translations cannot all be the true words of God in 100% of their verses.
This he has not proved. All he has proven is that the translations are different. Since, by his own admission, he cannot prove that the KJV is the only true translatioin, he has nothing to measure the translations against. Do you really not see that? If you cannot prove the KJV is 100% inspired and inerrant it cannot be used as a measure to judge other translations.
voltaire said:
the only way to deny that is to say that God can use 5 different words for a verse and have them all mean exactly the same thing. they may all be able to convey a general truth or p
How do you respond to this. Which of the following two phrases is wholly true and which is inerrant? Do both statement communicate the same concept?

1) two plus two equals four
2) too + too = for
 

PaulMcNabb

New member
when Jesus spoke at the synagogue in nazareth, and read from isaiah, did he have inerrant scrolls to read from? anyone?
If you mean by "inerrant" that there was no mistake at all, probably not. Scribes were always making errors, and the scrolls were many generations and many centuries removed from the autographs.
 

johncalvinhall

New member

This is very true. However an interesting irony is that even Benjamin Warfield, who is considered the prime founder of the currently fav concept of "inerrancy in the original autographs" actually had the position that the original autographs contained errors.

I cannot answer for BB Warfield. Do you have a specific reference I can look up to confirm this? I don't agree 100% with the man, but I did have a great deal of respect for him. It'd break my heart to find out that your statement is true.

It is extremely dangerous to hold liberal scholars with any amount of regard. I know many God-fearing Bible-believing brothers and sisters in Christ who have become ship-wrecked only because they considered these godless intellects to be authoritative.
 

Varangian

New member
I cannot answer for BB Warfield. Do you have a specific reference I can look up to confirm this? I don't agree 100% with the man, but I did have a great deal of respect for him. It'd break my heart to find out that your statement is true.

It would imagine it comes from taking some of his words out of context. Warfield believed that scripture was inerrant, but that inerrancy was something to be proven and demonstated rather than simply assumed in a prior manner.

For example he wrote:


"No doubt it is perfectly true and is to be kept in mind that the claim of a writing to be infallible may be mistaken or false. Such a claim has been put forth in behalf of and by other writings besides the Bible, and has been found utterly inconsistent with the observed characteristics of those writings…The test of the truth of the claims of the Bible to be inspired of God through comparison with its contents, characteristics and phenomena, the Bible cannot expect to escape; and the lovers of the Bible will be the last to deny the validity of it. By all means let the doctrine of the Bible be tested by the facts and let the test be made all the more, not the less, stringent and penetrating because of the great issues that hang upon it."​

If one were to take the first sentence out of context they could make it appear he denying inerrancy.
 
CabinetMaker said:
Did you notice, that once again, you failed to address any of the points I raise with you?
Cabinetmaker, I thought my posts were very clear.

I closed out with you when you showed yourself to be a railng accuser. You were also incapable of logical discussion, that did not help either, and was related. However your insistence on false accusations of bald-faced liar made you of no integrity and no import on the forum.

And you could never be "proved wrong" to your satisfaction because you are bound by your illogic, a place where spiritual principalities come to play.

Shalom,
Steven
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It would imagine it comes from taking some of his words out of context. Warfield believed that scripture was inerrant, but that inerrancy was something to be proven and demonstated rather than simply assumed in a prior manner.

For example he wrote:

"No doubt it is perfectly true and is to be kept in mind that the claim of a writing to be infallible may be mistaken or false. Such a claim has been put forth in behalf of and by other writings besides the Bible, and has been found utterly inconsistent with the observed characteristics of those writings…The test of the truth of the claims of the Bible to be inspired of God through comparison with its contents, characteristics and phenomena, the Bible cannot expect to escape; and the lovers of the Bible will be the last to deny the validity of it. By all means let the doctrine of the Bible be tested by the facts and let the test be made all the more, not the less, stringent and penetrating because of the great issues that hang upon it."​
If one were to take the first sentence out of context they could make it appear he denying inerrancy.
Warfield started by examining the historical, exegetical, and doctrinal evidence in front of him to make his argument for inerrancy, writing in Inspiration and Authority of the Bible:
"Now if this doctrine is to be assailed on critical grounds, it is very clear that, first of all, criticism must be required to proceed against the evidence on which it is based. This evidence, it is obvious, is twofold. First, there is the exegetical evidence that the doctrine held and taught by the Church is the doctrine held and taught by the Biblical writers themselves. And secondly, there is the whole mass of evidence—internal and external, objective and subjective, historical and philosophical, human and divine—which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If they are trustworthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and acted upon as true by us all. In that case, any objections brought against the doctrine from other spheres of inquiry are inoperative; it being a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it. If criticism is to assail this doctrine, therefore, it must proceed against and fairly overcome one or the other element of its proper proof. It must either show that this doctrine is not the doctrine of the Biblical writers, or else it must show that the Biblical writers are not trustworthy as doctrinal guides."
David Wallace comments on the passage, "I think Warfield’s argument is one of the most profound paragraphs ever written in defense of inerrancy." (See Wallace, My Take on Inerrancy, Aug. 10, 1996).
 
more sure word of prophecy

more sure word of prophecy

SaulToPaul said:
Does anyone know why Muz quoted 2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV to prove that the church was in charge of preserving the scriptures?
Hi SaulToPaul, I was puzzled by that as well.

Along with auxiliary questions as to what is the church that is doing the preserving, per muzicman. The RCC ? JW ? The Reformation ? The Byzantine Orthodox ? The Syriac Orthodox ? Various combinations ?

Conceivably it could be related to his aggressive position for the Arian reading of John 1:18. This section on 2 Peter was an area I would have liked to examine from his posts (along with a few others) however like a lot of his writing it is "fuzzy". And I only have had the time and energy so far to emphasize two things:

1) John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" vs his Arian corruption

2) major blunder on Westcott-Hort where muzicman tried to distance himself from their text with a false assertion of radical textual changes towards the Byzantine after their text was published

Please feel free to discuss 2 Peter more, what you might think muzicman was claiming, one of the problems in this type of format is that with the limited number of posts it is easy for somebody to say something strange (like the section you mentioned) or totally erroneous (like the Westcott-Hort distancing fiasco) and then slip-slide around it until the discussion session is over.

At least on John 1:18, the situation is clear. themuzicman took an absurd position, falsely claiming all the translations had only-begotten-God, and he strangely attacked the historically-agreed and accepted and affirmed and loved "only begotten Son" phrasing as somehow non-scriptural .. and then moved on. There is not much more to say, except to puzzle if he even knows and understands he is aggressively defending an Arian/JW interpretation (that is in fact from only a very minority corruption). We can't expect him to say much more, since his foot, on John 1:18, is already firmly planted in his mouth. What is a puzzle is WHY somebody would take that verse and translation as an attack on the King James Bible, unless they were oriented towards the NWT and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not like there are many evangelicals who support "only-begotten-God" doctrinally (that is why even the modern versions fudge their translation away from a literal translation of the minority corruption that they have to work with because they are still textual clones of Westcott-Hort). And it is not like "only-begotten-God" really has anything like the historical and textual and early church writer support of the majority Received Text reading.

John 1:18 (KJV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.


So the puzzle is why ?

Anyway, on the sure word of prophecy, if you have a conjecture, or an analysis, please share away.

=============================================

I also found other areas of great puzzlement, such as muzicman's very strange 400 AD theory of cross-language cross-region international textual coalescing. The muzicman recension. That was a doozy and could take hours to unravel, even if muzicman were responsive and accountable. Apparently he does not realize that all the pre-vellum MSS (c. his 400 AD date) would deteriorate and wear out from usage, with the exception being those stored away in desert climates and/or usage fully ended. If muzicman simply read Professor Maurice Robinson he would not be so confused about the MSS history and come up with fabricated nonsense theories like he did in the 400 AD section.

And the claims on the Leningrad Codex "considered to be the faithful transmission of the Old Testament to the church." By who ? Apparently Muzicman does not even realize that BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) which is often used for translations is not the Leningrad codex and that they differ in various ways and that there are many scribal errors in the Leningrad Codex. He talks about a piece of a Torah Scroll, which is a fine study, but not representative of the Tanach as Penteteuch copying was done on a far higher level than the rest of the Tanach.

And textcrits and the versions that he would support often deviate from the Masoretic text, taking readings from the Greek OT or the DSS or here and there. As another example of textcrit difficulty, Emanuel Tov proposed redoing the Tanach to include those sources and other sources like the Vulgate and the Peshitta and Targumim.

However, it is true that the level of difficulty in the Tanach is very low compared to what is caused by a few aberrant NT MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Bezae. And the textcrits have not been successful in contaminating the text to anything like the extent of the NT Westcott-Hort fiasco. So our emphasis on the forum should properly remain the NT.

=============================

And muzicman's mush views on inerrancy (actually attacking the Lord Jesus as errant on the mustard seed ! .. amazing) and inspiration and preservation. His presentation deteriorated as the discussion went on, and he gave up any pretense of remotely trying to present a coherent position about the identity and perfection of the Bible text. The only thing that seems to matter to him is that God could not have his word in the tangible, readable form, especially not in the King James Bible, God's word must be subject to confusion and changing scholarship and conflicting texts with errant readings.

Here is some of my notes from the 2 Peter area from Muzicman

"My position is that God has preserved His Word in the original for us. the original text is the only text that we can say was created "as the Holy Spirit carried them along." (2 Peter 1:16-21) ... The bible does tell us that the original writing in inspired by God."

Somehow he was also claiming that this teaches corruption, not preservation, after original inspiration. Very strange.

That would mean that the "Scripture" read by Jesus and Timothy and Paul was not fully pure and perfect, and that Jesus was overstating, as some scripture would have been frayed and broken.

Shalom,
Steven
 
Benjamin Warfield - pseudo-inerrantist

Benjamin Warfield - pseudo-inerrantist

Hi John,

johncalvinhall said:
... BB Warfield. Do you have a specific reference I can look up to confirm this?
Please read carefully. These problems are on top of the problem that "inerrancy in the original autographs" without tangible preservation is a doctrine of sand. The skeptics rightfully laugh at an apologist who can change his text as the discussion goes on, or claim that such-and-such is not an error because it might be different in the original autographs. Yet even in his limited realm of an ethereal unknown text, Warfield was not an inerrantist.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WxAEAAAAQAAJ
The British and Foreign Evangelical Review (1881)
P. 569 - Article VIII - Inspiration

In a backdoor fashion (quoting the liberals without disagreeing) Warfield makes absolutely clear his surrender of inerrancy, that he has abandoned the earlier contentions about "error-less".

"in certain elements of Scripture which are purely incidental to their great end of teaching spiritual truth, such as history, natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science, and philosophy, they, like all the best human writings of their age, are, while for the most part reliable, yet limited by inaccuracies and discrepancies." (p.581)

Amazing.
To Warfield scripture is heavily errant in seven or more categories, even philosophy !
To make it perfectly clear that he accepts this multi-accusation of errancy Warfield says:


"compared with other books of the same antiquity, these inaccuracies and discrepancies of the Bible are inconsiderable in number, and always of secondary importance, in no degree invalidating the great attribute of Scripture, its absolute infallibility and its divine authority as a rule of faith and practice." (p. 581)


johncalvinhall said:
.It is extremely dangerous to hold liberal scholars with any amount of regard. I know many God-fearing Bible-believing brothers and sisters in Christ who have become ship-wrecked only because they considered these godless intellects to be authoritative.
Amen. And the "original autographs" shell game is counter-reformation and liberal, not evangelical, whether from Benjamin Warfield or from Chicago.

Shalom,
Steven
 
Hi Folks,

When Warfield tries do undo the damage this is what he writes.

There will undoubtedly be found upon the surface many apparent affirmations presumably inconsistent with the present teachings of science, with facts of history, or with other statements of the sacred books themselves. Such apparent inconsistencies and collisions with other sources of information are to be expected in imperfect copies of ancient writings ; from the fact that the original reading may have been lost, or that we may fail to realise the point of view of the author, or that we are destitute of the circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and harmonise the record.


So he says that there are all these errors. One reason is "copyist error" and we do not know the actual text. The second is similar, lost originals, or lost somethings.

The third, however, is the "point of view of the author". Thus Mark and Luke (and Ezra and Isaiah and other Bible authors) may have been limited and mistaken on geography within the sacred writings, and that is why they put (in the modern versions) the swine more-than-marathon-distance from the Sea of Galilee. Or they may have heard the testimony of some witnesses wrong. Some things may have been 'lost in translation'. They may not have known geology or philosophy or natural science or various other "truths". All these could then be errors IN the autographs.

So then Warfield limits the claim to :

" will leave unmodified the ancient faith of the Church. In all their real affirmations these books are without error."

No longer does even the original non-extant ethereal "history, natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science, and philosophy" have to be right, simply the faith (real) affirmations. Warfield really wrote in a very crafty fashion. He makes the potential errors by Luke and John and Peter and Paul clear. It is easier to see with the fluff removed.

"... the Scriptures ... bear everywhere indelible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible ; and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong.


This leaves a Mack Truck space of room to drive through many types and sizes and quantities of errors. Maybe the authors misperceived creation and the flood and geology and archeology and philosophy or the dates of kings or the birthtime of the Lord Jesus or a thousand other things that they then wrote into scripture.

Now watch how Warfield twists right back to faith affirmation only. First he totally misrepresents the Reformation Confessions and the historic views, which did not have the original autograph unknown text Warfield caveat. However for these posts we are basically giving the fundamental problem a pass and showing that that he has a huge errancy allowance even within the "original autographs".

Warfield clearly limits accuracy only to facts or principles intended to be affirmed.. If faith was to be affirmed, but not science or geology, then the geology and science and philosophy can be wrong. Rarely have I seen craftier writing.

"Nevertheless, the historical faith of the Church has always been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.

Ahh.. very clever. First a real inerrancy-sounding statement ascribed to the historical church. However then it can be limited to only matching the natural and intended sense of scripture, which is not to claim that geography and philosophy and all of those pesky realms are necessarily truthful, accurate, logical. After all the authors are allowed to make all sorts of mistakes.

There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed. It is this accuracy, and this alone, as distinct from exactness, which the Church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of Scripture without exception. Every statement accurately corresponds to truth just as far forth as affirmed. "


Caveat emptor.

Shalom,
Steven
 

Varangian

New member
Steven Avery;1737539[COLOR="Navy" said:
In a backdoor fashion (quoting the liberals without disagreeing) Warfield makes absolutely clear his surrender of inerrancy, that he has abandoned the earlier contentions about "error-less".
[/COLOR]
"in certain elements of Scripture which are purely incidental to their great end of teaching spiritual truth, such as history, natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science, and philosophy, they, like all the best human writings of their age, are, while for the most part reliable, yet limited by inaccuracies and discrepancies." (p.581)

Honestly I'm not sure if you're lying here or just posess extremely poor reading comprehension. Warfield states this as the position of liberals and states his disagreement IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH.

With the statements "The writers of this article are sincerely convinced of the soundness of the great catholic doctrine of Biblical Inspiration" and that "all their elements and all their affirmations are absolutely errorless".

You'll also notice this article was not written by Warfield alone but also by AA Hodge, who was, if anything even more conservative than Warfield. But honestly given the way your post jumps around, I suspect you'd never actually read the article before doing a Google search to attempt to mine up quotes in your misguided attempt to prove Warfield somewhow didn't believe in inerrancy.
 

dreadknought

New member
1) John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" vs his Arian corruption

2) major blunder on Westcott-Hort where muzicman tried to distance himself from their text with a false assertion of radical textual changes towards the Byzantine after their text was published

At least on John 1:18, the situation is clear. themuzicman took an absurd position, falsely claiming all the translations had only-begotten-God, and he strangely attacked the historically-agreed and accepted and affirmed and loved "only begotten Son" phrasing as somehow non-scriptural .. and then moved on. There is not much more to say, except to puzzle if he even knows and understands he is aggressively defending an Arian/JW interpretation (that is in fact from only a very minority corruption). We can't expect him to say much more, since his foot, on John 1:18, is already firmly planted in his mouth. What is a puzzle is WHY somebody would take that verse and translation as an attack on the King James Bible, unless they were oriented towards the NWT and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not like there are many evangelicals who support "only-begotten-God" doctrinally (that is why even the modern versions fudge their translation away from a literal translation of the minority corruption that they have to work with because they are still textual clones of Westcott-Hort). And it is not like "only-begotten-God" really has anything like the historical and textual and early church writer support of the majority Received Text reading.



Well Steven, I had already moved on to other things since the debate was over and I don't bash other peoples preference for reading Scripture. But blasphemy does not go unaswered. Since you rely on tradition apparently to interpret Scripture, are you saying St. Cyril was an Arian?

431 AD
The Third Ecumenical Council: The council at Ephesus
St. Cyril to Nestorius with the Anathematisms
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., col. 395; Migne, Patr. Græc., Tom. LXXVII. [Cyril, Opera, Tom. X.], col. 105 et seqq.)


We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father, and Only-begotten God; and although according to his own nature he was not subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in the flesh according to the Scriptures, and although impassible, yet in his Crucified Body he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh; and by the grace of God he tasted death for all: he gave his own Body thereto, although he was by nature himself the life and the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might become the first born from the dead, and the first-fruits of them that slept.

Maybe a thread should be started that would discuss the differences of the various translations that would help all Christians learn and know where the limitations of these differing translations are? A much more brotherly thing to do. And maybe we could distance ourselves from delusional thinking. "Bible babble"??? LOL...


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top