ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 323
Apr 17 09 11:37 PM
Posts: 3154
Apr 18 09 8:30 AM
God was just as faithful to keep His promises before 1611 as after 1611. The Scriptures indicate that preservation of the Scriptures concerns the Scriptures in the original languages. God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18). The "tittle" at Luke 16:17 would also indicate the original language text of the law. If preservation cannot be limited to the original languages, it could not be scripturally limited to translation into any other languages. Christ's comment about the writings of Moses (John 5:46-47) would also seem to refer to Moses' writings in the original language that had been preserved and could still be read and believed. The prophecy that came in old time would have been in the original language (2 Peter 1:21). The Scripture given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles was in the original languages (2 Tim. 3:16). Homer Massey affirmed: "God has preserved His Word in the languages in which it was originally written" (Fundamental Baptist Crusader, Jan., 1981, p. 2). In his commentary on Matthew, John Broadus wrote: "Jot, in the Greek iota, signifies the Hebrew letter iod (pronounced yod), corresponding to the English i" (p. 100). Broadus noted: "No part of the law, not the most insignificant letter was to be set aside. And this statement is further strengthened by adding tittle, --in the Greek 'horn,' --denoting a very slight projection at the corner of certain Hebrew letters, which distinguishes them from others that are rounded. Compare Luke 16:17. The word 'horn' in this sense would not be understood among us, and so 'tittle' (a very small object) was wisely used by Wycliffe, and retained by all subsequent translators" (p. 100). Marvin Vincent affirmed that "jot is for jod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet" (Word Studies, I, p. 40).
Even some KJV-only authors acknowledge that Matthew 5:18 refers to the original languages. D. A. Waite wrote: "Technically, Bible preservation has its primary meaning for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek 'Words' and not in varying languages" (Bob Jones, p. 19). KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: "The Lord Jesus spoke of the jots and tittles of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:18), and this refers specifically to the Hebrew language" (Faith, p. 175). Cloud described the jot as the "tenth and smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet" and the tittle as "a tiny part of a Hebrew letter; in particular it is that part that distinguishes the daleth from the resh" (p. 175). In his Way of Life Encyclopedia, Cloud defined jot as "the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 216) and tittle as "tiny marks used to distinguish between letters in the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 437). Waite's Defined KJB indicated that jot referred to the "smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet" (p. 1262). D. A. Waite noted that the tittle "is the smallest distinguishing feature between two Hebrew letters" (Foes, p. 41). Gary Webb also asserted that "in Matthew 5:18 Jesus clearly refers to the Hebrew text since 'jots' and tittles' are found in Hebrew, not Greek" (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 49). In this same book, Thomas Corkish wrote: "A 'jot' or 'tittle' is smaller than any concept, individual commandment, or even one word, and refers to the minutia of the Hebrew text" (p. 147). Do KJV-only advocates think that Matthew 5:18 teaches a completely active preservation by God in the sense that every jot and tittle of each and every individual word is protected by continual supernatural acts that prevent any possibility of human error in copying the words? Do they imply that this same-type active preservation must also be in only one English translation so that its every individual letter and part of a letter are also perfectly preserved? If that is the type preservation claimed for the KJV, it is clear that present KJV editions [except for the reprints of the 1611 edition] do not preserve perfectly every individual letter and part of every letter found in the 1611 edition.
Those verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would have important implications that relate to the doctrine of preservation. These verses were important instructions and warnings given concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important part of preservation. These instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of accurate copies of the Scriptures. In addition, a logical deduction from these verses would affirm that copies would need to be examined or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made and that nothing was omitted. These verses would imply that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies should be corrected. When these verses are applied secondarily to translations, they would indicate that a translation could and should be corrected by comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages whenever that translation adds to, takes away, or diminishes by a poor, misleading, or inaccurate rendering. That the preserved and accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for evaluating translations of the Scriptures would seem to be a valid implication or deduction drawn from those verses.
Posts: 85958
Apr 18 09 10:32 AM
Administrator
dcforrey wrote: Hi Shain, I haven't noticed anybody on either side of the issue claim that God can't do whatever He wants to do. Of course He can do whatever He wishes. He will keep your soul and mine forever. The question is whether or not He in fact chose to make an English translation published in 1611 the one and only perfect English translation ever (unless you believe that there are other perfect English translations).
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any ( Bible Scholar at that time) You see Satan was the very first Bible correcter , he got the corruption started. You have God's pure Holy and Infallible Word and than you have the corrupt Codex Vaticanius and Codex Sinaiticus. The first Bible correcter said: Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? We have the exact same thing going on today when they attack the Authorized King James Bible and the underlining text it came from. But Satan then calls God a Liar....
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
We have the very same thing going on today. All Bible corrupters claim that God Almighty can't keep your salvation forever and ever because God can't keep His Word pure and Holy forever and ever in written form. When God said He would:
Deu 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.
Psa 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psa 119:144 The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.
Psa 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old th
Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. at thou hast founded them for ever.
Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isa 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
Isa 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Jer 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
Apr 18 09 10:37 AM
God never promised to preserve His Word in any language other than the original languages used in the original autographs (Matt. 5:17-18).
Jer 30:2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. Just as He has promised to keep our souls for ever saved:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Apr 18 09 10:58 AM
Even some KJV-only authors acknowledge that Matthew 5:18 refers to the original languages. D. A. Waite wrote: "Technically, Bible preservation has its primary meaning for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek 'Words' and not in varying languages" (Bob Jones, p. 19).
Psa 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast found them for ever.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
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.
Apr 18 09 6:04 PM
Posts: 7270
Apr 18 09 6:12 PM
Apr 18 09 7:48 PM
Apr 18 09 7:55 PM
steelmaker wrote: Shain:God gave us what He wanted His English Speaking Church to have His Word preserved in the Authorized King James Bible. AND IN EVERY OTHER VALID VERSION! No one can prove otherwise. The question is whether or not He in fact chose to make an English translation published in 1611 the one and only perfect English translation ever (unless you believe that there are other perfect English translations). He did NOT so choose to make it perfect. We have PROVEN the KJV aint perfect. "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" are two glaring booboos among others. And every valid version is as perfect as God chose for it to be. Betcha can't prove otherwise! It's God's Words that He will preserve, not His thoughts, or ideas, or suggestions, but His Very WORDS. Right-and they aint in ENGLISH! All English versions are TRANSLATIONS, not original wordsa God. Again, the TOTAL LACKA SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth proves it's FALSE. No one can prove otherwise.
Apr 18 09 8:21 PM
Apr 18 09 8:25 PM
dcforrey wrote: Hi Shain, You are answering questions that I'm not asking. Maybe I should change my question a little. What was God's perfectly preserved Word in 1599? If you believe that there was no perfectly preserved word in 1599 just say so. Maybe you believe that the Geneva was pretty good, but not quite perfect yet. Why not just say so?
Apr 18 09 8:34 PM
Apr 18 09 8:41 PM
dcforrey wrote: OK, here's another one: Was there a secret KJV published before 1599? How could the KJV be perfect in 1599 unless it existed at that time? Thanks, (the O's have closed the gap to 6-4)
Apr 18 09 8:44 PM
Shain1611 wrote: The AV was the end results of God's purification of His Words.
Apr 18 09 9:01 PM
Apr 18 09 9:25 PM
Apr 20 09 3:33 PM
dcforrey wrote: Thanks Shain, So am I to assume that since the KJV didn't exist before 1611, then there was no perfect English Bible in one volume before 1611?
Apr 20 09 3:38 PM
dcforrey wrote: hi Shain, The verses you quoted existed in the Geneva Bible in 1599, before the KJV existed. When people read their Geneva Bibles in 1599 to what version of the Bible were those passages referring? Forget about modern versions for the moment. Stay in 1599. I already know about your opinions about "corrupt" modern versions. They didn't exist in 1599. Please just limit yourself to answering this one question without referring to modern versions: What was God's perfectly preserved Word in 1599?
Sinaiticus from all outward appearances looks very beautiful. But it contains many spurious books such as the "Shepherd of Hermes," the "Epistle of Barnabas," and even the "Didache". It has survived time well, but being in good physical shape by no means makes its contents trustworthy. The Codex is covered with alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers.
Vaticanus, as its name implies, is in the Vatican library at Rome. No one knows when it was placed in the Vatican library, but its existence was first made known in 1841.
This Codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits GENESIS 1:1 through GENESIS 46:28; PSALM 106 through 138; MATTHEW 16:2-3; ROMANS 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; REVELATION; and everything in HEBREWS after 9:14.
It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless. (Please read HEBREWS 10:10-12). The "mass" in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand-in-hand to form a perpetual money-making machine for Rome. It also omits portions of Scripture telling of the creation (GENESIS), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (PSALM 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great #%#*% of REVELATION chapter 17.
Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. It exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. The mass of corrections and scribal changes render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable.
Vaticanus leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance. On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.
It seems that this type of text was a local text of Alexandria, Egypt of which Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea) made fifty copies to fulfil a request by Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately Eusebius turned to the education centre in Egypt and got a "scholarly revision" instead of turning to Antioch for the pure text which was universally accepted by the true Christians.
Why would Eusebius choose Alexandria over Antioch? Primarily because he was a great admirer of Origen, an Egyptian scholar. Origen, though once exalted by modern-day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy. He propagated the heresy that Jesus Christ was a "created" God. This is a false doctrine clung to by Jehovah's Witnesses of our day, who strangely enough get their teaching from the corrupt Alexandrian Text's rendition of JOHN 1:1-5 and JOHN 3:13, a corruption which Origen is responsible for when he revised the original Text to read in agreement with his personal heresy!
It is quite possible that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two of these fifty copies ordered by Constantine or are copies of those copies.
The Alexandrian text fell into disuse about 500 A.D. while the original Antioch Text was spreading true Christianity throughout Europe. The Alexandrian Text was abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revised in our day and stamped as genuine. This is where your translations came from, not the AV1611. It's your side who make the claim that these Greek manuscripts was better than the TR. And it's many on your side that have been fooled by their flase claims. So lets keep the facts straight..
Apr 20 09 3:41 PM
dcforrey wrote: One more thing......from another thread The KJV came along after the Geneva, and to the people living in 1611 it was a "modern" version. It changed the wording of the Geneva throughout the entire Bible. So before 1611 when people were reading along in their Geneva Bibles and came to Psalm 12:6-7, to which Bible version was the Scripture referring?
Apr 20 09 3:45 PM
Share This