introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

Exactly the same thing can be said of KJV-onlyism.

Probably anyone could say anything about anything. Just because there are many voices in the world does not make claims credible.

That's why several have been trying for some time to get you to offer some kind of credible evidence for your position, which you've so far failed to provide.

Some people play a game where no evidence is credible if it does not match their a priori position.

The closest you've got is, essentially, it's obvious to every Christian that the Bible says the KJV is perfect.

Really? I am sure I have referred to at least twenty verses of Scripture.

productive discussion.

That's a two way street. I have offered my view and others there, and we can debate and discuss. There's nothing more productive than that. But perhaps it is your lack of convincing me of your view which makes you feel discussion is not productive?

One of the ideas being said against the KJB is as if the Church has failed to transmit properly the Scripture in its midst, and that by doing archaeology (hunting for old mss) we are at last getting somewhere with Bible criticism. That, I think, entirely contradicts the view that Jesus has been ruling in the Church through the centuries, as the Scripture says, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2). Truth was never lost and an accurate text and translation was able to be gathered in the Reformation period.

[bibleprotector]

Humanistic probabilities? Probabilities are neither humanistic nor divine.

We are dealing with God's promise to transmit Scripture, and the doctrine of preservation and the doctrines of building the Church, the growing kingdom and the spiritual gathering, so there is hardly anything un-divine or purely chance to do with the Word of God coming through time.

And there probably are some certainties in life.

You speak like a Roman Catholic, or a Deist or an unbeliever seeking eternal life.

But let's not have a blind faith in something which is far from certain, just because we want to believe it.

This is the very same argument which can be used for saying that you are unsure of whether you are saved, etc.

But let us deal with this issue. True faith is not blind but seeing with spiritual eyes. Your argument for dice-tossing is for what is seen and known in the natural.

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Faith is rational. Unbelief actually is the opposite, even though it is based on human reasoning.

2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

There is a wisdom of the world which is earthly, sensual and devilish, and a wisdom of God which makes peace. Worldly wisdom such as to not have any spiritual explanation about the Bible coming through time is an idea which comes to nothing.

1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

Since I have given no indication at any time that I believe in a created God, why do you believe that? Or are you assuming that John 1:18 would say that if the word was "God" instead of "Son"? there's nothing about creation in that verse.

Your upholding of "only-begotten God" indicates that you hypothetically or rhetorically believe in a created God.

In 150 A.D. and before there was no such thing as a "canon of the New Testament".

That is the same as saying that the separate books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not exist. Just because "the Canon" may not have been finalised does not mean that the Scripture did not exist. And if the inspired books did exist (i.e. they did exist), then obviously in those perilous times, there were also people in places who were corrupting copies. We know this because Paul already said, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." (2 Cor. 2:17).

All apostolic writings were read in the churches including Clement's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after Paul and Peter's death.

We can assume that Scriptures were being read around the place. The existence of copies of Scripture is logical based not merely on finding quotations in the Church Fathers or finding scraps of copies, but that it is self-evident from the Scripture we have right now that it says that Scripture existed and was going abroad in the 1st century.

I don't know why you want to open the door for Clement's letter, unless you are using it to provide evidence of its allusions to knowledge of New Testament writings in early times.

The Christian scribes made every attempt to copy faithfully and carefully the memoirs of Christ ("gospels") and the letters of the apostles as well as other writings now found in our New Testaments.

That's like saying Christians are people who have made every attempt to believe and be saved, as if it is just trying and human works. Copying the Bible and its transmission is not merely a human endeavour. If it was, your modern version view would be right, because that would just be the latest development in the arena of human endeavour.

Jesus said, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

He expected that His words would endure through time. He expected that the same thing He said, and the same copy of the Scripture (e.g. John's Gospel) would be there at the end of history. Otherwise Christians would not have had a fair warning or a proper framework though time.

This indicates that God's superintendence, special care and providence has been involved in the preservation and transmission of Scripture. This means that even though there was scattering and evidence of corruptions (such as your 150 AD papyrus shows), it did not thwart or overwhelm the Scripture through time.

This is not to suggest that God caused perfect copies of the originals to be made generation by generation, or that perfect translations have been supplied to every language. What I am saying is that we should actually believe the teaching of the Scripture that God has been faithful, and that His Word has not been in a state of flux, and that He had to raise up modern scholarship to help get it into a better state, even though modern scholarship has as a cardinal rule that no copy, version or translation ever can be or will be perfect. It is that final humanistic assumption which is indicative of the entire modernistic system and so fatal to itself in standing in OPPOSITION to the teachings of the Word of God.

First of all it's not "unintelligible".

I am speaking rhetorically, of course, because no Christian is actually bringing a few scraps (scanned in on a computer or ereader) with him to read from next Sunday morning, and, more importantly, Church attendees are not comprehending Greek. If you read out some Greek in a congregation, they would not understand, and it would edify no one. In a Pentecostal Church they would pray for an interpretation!

It's one of many pages comprising the entire gospel of John.

Looks like lots of John is still missing from P66.

In my opinion it is a faithful copy of earlier copies of the original manuscript penned by John. The copyist sometimes omitted a letter or two, but he then went back over it and corrected these minor errors.

So, you are happy to uphold your opinion that for the period of time until 150 AD, the Scripture was not corrupted, even though you are relying upon an incomplete MS of one book of the Bible; but when it came to the Reformation, the KJB which has the entire of the Book of John, got various things wrong?!?

Most of those burned at stake during the middle ages were the so-called "Anabaptists" (Re-baptizers).

Nice Romanist apology there, but what about Tyndale and the English Reformation martyrs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pr ... eformation

Why would they put anyone to death for believing in the same Bible which they accepted?

That's a good question. Why was Wycliffe exhumed? Why was Tyndale burned? And John Rogers? Clearly, it was because the Romanists were against the English Bible.

Many of the Anabaptists used Luther's translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into German.

And the Vatican hosted a display about the King James Version recently, which doesn't have any relevance either.

It is possible that Catholics persecuted those who used anyone who used any Bible other than their Jerome's Latin Vulgate. In the middle ages, they considered the Vulgate in much the same way as you consider the King James translation—as the "only true Bible."

This accusation against the KJB is incorrect on many grounds.

First, you know full well that the Romanists persecuted many people.

Second, just because the Papists declared how wonderful their Vulgate was all falls to pieces when it is known that there were different editions (actually, technically, versions) of the Vulgate, such as the Sixtine and the Clementine. There are more now.

Third, the Roman Catholic doctrine for the inspired Vulgate is nothing like the Protestant argument for the upholding of the KJB. This is because the KJB was not made by inspiration, and because no "papal-like" declaration has been made over the KJB.

Fourth, the Roman Catholics have had to back-pedal their position on the Vulgate, and have since employed modern textual criticism, and also promoted making new translations in their Vatican 2 document on the subject.

Fifth, the KJB is not upheld as an icon, by superstitious deference or worshipped by me, so your implication is incorrect.

Sixth, and most importantly, the KJB is not the only true Bible, in that the true Scripture existed since the time of the prophets and apostles, and came through time (i.e. long before the KJB came to be in 1611). Furthermore, various people have used Scripture which is not the KJB after 1611. Foreign people have been saved without knowing English, and salvation is being taught (regardless of modern undermining) today by people in English who do not use the KJB. My view is that the KJB is the exact presentation and content of the Scripture and the ultimate benchmark for proper doctrine in time, but the pretended quote that the KJB is the "only true Bible" is dishonest.

Seventh, the KJB is in English in a language many understand. The Vulgate is in Latin which is a dead language.

[SteveF]

BP, why do you suppose God decided to have the scriptures preserved on something as fragile as papyrus?

[bibleprotector]

BP, why do you suppose God decided to have the scriptures preserved on something as fragile as papyrus?

The preservation of Scripture is the preservation of words which communicate ideas, not the mere preservation of physical matter. You may as well ask why did God create reeds in the first place. Of course man has used paper to write on, but if you faith is in that rather than the reality that the solid English communication of His Word is present today, then we can see where people's faith is at.

Remember, some people have this astounding faith that P66 is right, while all the usage of the common KJB is somehow misguided or lacking.

[SteveF]

The preservation of Scripture is the preservation of words which communicate ideas, not the mere preservation of physical matter. You may as well ask why did God create reeds in the first place. Of course man has used paper to write on, but if you faith is in that rather than the reality that the solid English communication of His Word is present today, then we can see where people's faith is at.

Could I ask you to rephrase your answer? I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say. For example, in the first sentence it sounds like you're saying it was unnecessary to copy the scriptures onto anything physical. Then you seem to say, they had no choice but to use paper (a seeming contradiction from the first sentence). Then you seem to say we shouldn't rely on anything where the scriptures were physically written. Then you seem to imply that God finally decided to make a "solid" bible by inspiring people to write it down in English. Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it from manuscripts that you now seem to say we shouldn't have faith in.

Could you clarify you're saying? Thanks

[Singalphile]

SteveF wrote:
BP, why do you suppose God decided to have the scriptures preserved on something as fragile as papyrus?

For me, what is most odd about this alleged scheme of things: 1) God is supposed to have waited 1,500 years or so to providentially produce this perfect translation, and 2) He is supposed to have decided to limit His purest message to one translation in one form of one language (English, of course) which most of the world does not and perhaps never will understand at all or well *.

I have no doubt that a person can devise an answer, but in the absence of Scriptural support for such theories, I don't understand why any fellow believer wants to spend his time doing so. mattrose's thesis (page 2 of this thread) is as good as any, I suppose, as a start.

* Though English is currently the most widely used language in the world, it is "the third-most-common native language in the world" and out of 7.1 billion people on earth, it is thought that only "over one billion people speak English to at least a basic level." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[steve7150]

For me, what is most odd about this scheme of things: 1) God is supposed to have waited 1,500 years or so to providentially produce this perfect translation, and 2) He is supposed to have decided to limit His purest message to one translation in one form of one language (English, of course) which most of the world has not and does not and perhaps never will understand at all or well *.










Good points and also even after the 1,500 years the great majority of people who even spoke english were illiterate plus even for the remaining few who spoke english and were literate, very few of those had access to KJV bibles for several hundred years.

[jriccitelli]

(That was well said SteveF)
I don’t want to interrupt any answers here BP, but I still have not seen you defend your position with anything better than assertions and insistence, for example: “Thus, the KJB is for us the full and complete access in one singular form the exact words and meaning of Scripture” (BP, pg.11).

‘Because I say so’ is not a compelling reason for anything.

All scriptural proofs demand authority. God demands proof for assertions concerning His Word. And most people are wise enough to expect 'some sort' of proof also. It was expected of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and the disciples, and they provided proof. Why is your assertion the exception?
Like I said, the Mormons, Muslims, and the RC church at least acknowledge their assertions need ‘some sort’ of defense, and they ‘at least’ attempt to provide some scripture or prophecy, where as you have haven’t given us any reason to believe you.
You have not given one proof text, or reason other than what could be applied to ‘any’ bible translation.
That the KJV was printed in massive numbers and singularly relied upon, is all well and good, but this is not proof for it’s accuracy (especially when errors are obviously present). You also make out those who don’t agree with your KJO claim, to be modernists, realivists (?), atheists(?), etc, (yet, note that no one here has called you out on your Word of Faith leanings).

Your KJO assertions make all kinds of accusations against Christians who have no difference in doctrinal leanings at all, other than that they don’t accept the KJO claim. This seems like a tactic used by certain groups to establish an ‘us and them’ diversion. The result of KJO is very divisive, yet it is based on nothing but an assertion, to what end? Divide? This thinking divides people for no other reason than KJO, yet once the group is separated the group begets a mentality that other ‘Christians’ in general are deceived and only the KJO group can be trusted.
I have done apologetics for only 20 years and although a lot of groups don’t agree with one another, the KJO group comes across as 'a one side or the other', no-compromise group, where as other doctrinally opposed groups seem to be more agreeable (I don’t know how else to put it, but KJO proponents throw out more wild accusations than I see from say, Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Calvinists, Arminians, etc.).

“Since modern versionism is based on assumptions not taught in the Scripture”, “The modern usage of Greek is based on modernistic and relativistic assumptions”, “… and that relying upon the English alone for all study, teaching and doctrinal exposition is entirely safe and will not be fraught with the errors to which Greek studies, exegesis and hermeneutics are. The full truth is in English” (BP 7-12, pg11)

This KJO’ism would lead one to be rather uninterested in any sort of research, scholarship, analysis, or intellect whatsoever. That is a cult waiting to happen.

You also continue to asset that those in disagreement with KJO, are the same as those who don’t believe Gods Word, as if they are one and the same. Your statements falsely make out any non-KJO person to sound as if they do not believe in the King James at all, yet nothing is further from the truth. All those here I’m sure have a utmost respect for the KJV, and most all of us here use and love the KJV. We just have no reason to believe ‘one’ version holds a divine precedence over other translations, past present or future.

You also speak as if no one understands Greek or Hebrew anymore. Greek is still a nationality and a language. My son in law and all the relatives (including grandchildren) speak fluent Greek, and among the Greek Orthodox the ancient Koinonia is not much harder for some of them to read than say a English reader reading 1611 English. They attend a large Greek Orthodox church which has quite a number of Elders who can read Koinonia Greek like reading a newspaper.

Latin was not a dead language at one time, and it is not ‘unknown’ now. Greek ‘was’ the language of the day, but even English may soon pass as predominate as did the Latin and Greek. Spanish and Mandarin are just as much spoken as English. Jesus spoke Aramaic also, why didn’t He stick to Hebrew if one such divine language was necessary?

“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the honour of kings is to search out a matter’”(Pro.25:2)

[bibleprotector]

The preservation of Scripture is the preservation of words which communicate ideas, not the mere preservation of physical matter. You may as well ask why did God create reeds in the first place. Of course man has used paper to write on, but if you faith is in that rather than the reality that the solid English communication of His Word is present today, then we can see where people's faith is at.

Could I ask you to rephrase your answer? I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say. For example, in the first sentence it sounds like you're saying it was unnecessary to copy the scriptures onto anything physical. Then you seem to say, they had no choice but to use paper (a seeming contradiction from the first sentence). Then you seem to say we shouldn't rely on anything where the scriptures were physically written. Then you seem to imply that God finally decided to make a "solid" bible by inspiring people to write it down in English. Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it from manuscripts that you now seem to say we shouldn't have faith in.

Could you clarify you're saying? Thanks

Preservation of the Scripture means the preservation of the words, not a promise about pieces of paper. Words have meaning, and it is that which is being preserved.

Now, Scripture has been written down all through the years, so of course writing the Scripture was God's plan, but the issue is not on whether it is paper, but that the words are present right now.

You said, "it sounds like you're saying it was unnecessary to copy the scriptures onto anything physical." No, I said the opposite.

You said, "they had no choice but to use paper". No, I said it was a fact that they used paper.

You said, "Then you seem to imply that God finally decided to make a 'solid' bible by inspiring people to write it down in English." Totally wrong. My reference to "solid" means a reliable set of words. I never said "inspired", and it wrong to think that. In fact, pretty much what you said I said is all wrong.

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important".

You said, "from manuscripts that you now seem to say we shouldn't have faith in." Again, wrong. The KJB men did not use P66 to translate from. Also, we do not have faith in paper, so the whole line of reasoning you present is wrong. Finally, my point is that we have faith in the words of God that we know and see and understand in English, which on its own right now in the present nothing to do with talking about Greek manuscripts.

[bibleprotector]

(That was well said SteveF)
I don’t want to interrupt any answers here BP, but I still have not seen you defend your position with anything better than assertions and insistence, for example: “Thus, the KJB is for us the full and complete access in one singular form the exact words and meaning of Scripture” (BP, pg.11).

‘Because I say so’ is not a compelling reason for anything.

Clearly, I have not merely said "I say so" or the like, if you read back through this thread, you will discover that I have given some Scripture verses and some explanations.

All scriptural proofs demand authority.

The authority provided is the verses of scripture quoted.

where as you have haven’t given us any reason to believe you.

You should at least say that you do not accept the numerous verses I have quoted.

You have not given one proof text, or reason other than what could be applied to ‘any’ bible translation.

Really? So all or any translation matches up with particular statement made in Isaiah 34:16? In reality, I doubt that you apply these verses to "any" translation.

That the KJV was printed in massive numbers and singularly relied upon, is all well and good, but this is not proof for it’s accuracy (especially when errors are obviously present).

Where did I say that having a million copies makes it right?

By what standard or prefect authority do you measure these supposed errors?

You claim the errors are obvious, why do all the modern scholars differ on readings and translations?

You also make out those who don’t agree with your KJO claim, to be modernists, realivists (?), atheists(?), etc,

Yes, to be against the perfection of the KJB today is because of the influence of modernism. That modernism is not the same as what Roman Catholics call modernism.

Going to the Greek is a relativistic exercise.

But I never said that Christians who used modern versions were atheists.

Your KJO assertions make all kinds of accusations against Christians who have no difference in doctrinal leanings at all, other than that they don’t accept the KJO claim.

Actually, there is a big difference in one doctrine.

As an example, the "Christians who have no difference in doctrinal leanings at all" claim to believe that the Scripture is verbally inspired in every word, absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God breathed, and that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days, etc. This is true. Yet, their caveat is that they limit this reality to the original documents, not to having a perfect Bible today. Again, they redefine the literal interpretation to mean the “grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture”, which often explains away the applicability of Scripture, and makes it subjective by appealing to the Hebrew and Greek, as well as to modern day opinions about how people in the past thought. Further, they claim that Scripture has only one right interpretation — an interpretation which seems to inevitably disconnect the Scripture from a living, present reality, locking it into the past and/or future.

The Scripture is true not just in the original documents, but today. (The King James Bible is perfect right now.) The entire hermeneutic and exegetical method of the grammatical historical interpretation is incorrect, as it limits the meaning of the Scripture to modern opinion of what Hebrew and Greek words are thought to have meant; it limits the meaning of the Scripture to the intent of the original writer, the understanding of the original audience and the context of that time; and it limits the meaning of the Scripture as a present reality, as if the Holy Ghost was not speaking directly beyond the time of inspiration.

This thinking divides people for no other reason than KJO, yet once the group is separated the group begets a mentality that other ‘Christians’ in general are deceived and only the KJO group can be trusted.

This is fairly wrong, because my favourite preacher, Keith Moore, uses modern versions.

What is divisive is how those who use the KJB only are misrepresented as schismatic and implied to be holding bizarre doctrines and unlearned. Just because some folks are does not mean all folks are.

“Since modern versionism is based on assumptions not taught in the Scripture”, “The modern usage of Greek is based on modernistic and relativistic assumptions”, “… and that relying upon the English alone for all study, teaching and doctrinal exposition is entirely safe and will not be fraught with the errors to which Greek studies, exegesis and hermeneutics are. The full truth is in English” (BP 7-12, pg11)

1. Modern versionism is based on an approach not in scripture, but on modern reason (e.g. men make mistakes, we need to find the oldest manuscripts in the same original language to eliminate as many mistakes as possible). Translations are made by the same assumptions (e.g. everyone renders things differently, and there is no direct way to get the exact force and nuance of the original into our present, ever changing situation today).

2. Greek studies, exegesis and hermeneutics are indeed fraught with errors, because every variant Christian doctrine (i.e. every wrong doctrine on every subject) is being justified by people appealing to the Hebrew and Greek, while every right doctrine does not need the same thing, even though many people also go to the originals to unnecessarily and misguidedly "bolster up the truth". Exegesis and hermeneutics are problematic because they are anti-Scriptural approaches. NO ONE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT USED GRAMMATICAL-HISTORICAL APPROACH! Nor the critical approach (which is even more unbelieving)!

This KJO’ism would lead one to be rather uninterested in any sort of research, scholarship, analysis, or intellect whatsoever. That is a cult waiting to happen.

This is the true nature of the accusations against my position, which is the false claim that it is foolish. I have and do engage my mind, but apparently this does not count, because unless it is Hellenophilic, it is nigh heresy.

You also continue to asset that those in disagreement with KJO, are the same as those who don’t believe Gods Word, as if they are one and the same.

This is a total fabrication. To reject the perfection of the KJB is a sign of deception, sure, but not of someone who is about to lose their salvation. I am sure that there are some better Christians who don't use the KJB than ones who do.

Your statements falsely make out any non-KJO person to sound as if they do not believe in the King James at all, yet nothing is further from the truth. All those here I’m sure have a utmost respect for the KJV, and most all of us here use and love the KJV. We just have no reason to believe ‘one’ version holds a divine precedence over other translations, past present or future.

Again, a total misrepresentation. There are many who like and use the KJB, etc. etc. The issue is the reasons why people don't accept the perfection of the KJB. They don't accept it because 1. with people like you to make accusations against them, they wouldn't want to be labelled a fanatic, 2. lots of people say about how the KJB didn't get something quite right, 3. influential people talk about modern versions being easy to understand, 4. scholarship makes it seem like it really knows better than the KJB with 400 years more learning, 5. people are taught wrong assumptions, 6. some KJBOs are bad witnesses, 7. they have not yet been presented with the Scripture which is surefire evidence of the KJB's perfection.

You also speak as if no one understands Greek or Hebrew anymore.

These are the facts:
1. Bible Hebrew is hardly known.
2. Modern day Jewish is different.
3. Bible Colleges are infected with anti-perfection rhetoric, and so what they know does not always/often match the meaning of the KJB. The evidence for this is in their talk about "Aramaic", their attack on the letter "J" (jod), etc.

And:
1. Bible Greek is hardly known.
2. Modern day Greek in Greece is not the same.
3. Even the Greek of Eastern Orthodoxy is not the same.
4. Bible Colleges are infected with anti-perfection rhetoric:
a. modern Greek textual criticism is overtly anti-KJB
b. Majority Text views vary from the KJB, preferring the NKJV
c. Textus Receptus views still deny the perfection of the KJB
5. Scholarship today is divided over the meaning of Greek words, and this exceeding far beyond discussing English words

Latin was not a dead language at one time, and it is not ‘unknown’ now.

Technicality, in reality, we don't use it.

Jesus spoke Aramaic also

No he didn't. As the Son of God (i.e. omniscient) He obviously would know Syriack, but there is no real evidence from the NT of "Aramaic" being used.

I challenge you to prove otherwise. (The only possible thing you could say is that "Eli" is different to "Eloi", but then, in the NT, "Juda" is different to "Judah", and "Jeremy" to "Jeremias").