introducing Bible Protector

[steve]

Hi Bibleprotector,

You wrote:

are you saying that our English manuscripts are unreliable or not Scripture?

I am confused about your position. What are you referring to as "English manuscripts"? Manuscripts generally refer to hand-written copies produced prior to the invention of the printing press. Are you referring to Tyndale and Wycliffe?

Also, Greek manuscripts are simply copies of copies of the Greek originals. English Bibles are translations from ancient Greek into a modern tongue. Certainly a document in the original language, and dating 1000 years nearer the time of the original is of greater use in determining the original text than is any translation dating from 1500 years after the originals were written.

You have great confidence in the 1611 English version. Is there some reason for believing it to be better than the earlier English versions of Tyndale and Wycliffe, or than the later KJV of 1769? I am not claiming to know which of these early English translations is the best of the bunch, and would be willing to say that the 1611 holds that distinction, if the evidence were to support that thesis. My question is, what reasons or evidence lead you to this conclusion?

[mattrose]

I've debated KJV-onlyism enough already in my fairly short existence to know that this is almost certainly not going to be a discussion worth having. So, instead, I'll jump right to what I REALLY think about this issue.

KJV-onlyism is the product of the natural human desire for certainty. But it is misguided and misplaced. It is misguided b/c God has told us that our lives between the 1st & 2nd Coming will lack certainty... and it is misplaced because when we do ultimately arrive at certainty it will be found in Christ (not the Bible). The Bible should not be made the center, as KJV-onlyism almost always inevitably makes it.

[Paidion]

Wrong. The same version, that is text and translation, from 1611 is present here today. It was not altered. What has changed is merely the correction of printing errors, the standardisation of spelling in English, etc.

False. It was altered big time. I just downloaded "The Pure Cambridge Edition" from the "bibleprotector" website and began comparing it to the 1611 King James Bible. The 1611 King James Bible contains the deuterocanonical books (also known as "The Apocrypha", but "The Pure Cambridge Edition" has omitted them all. This I noticed immediately. So how can you say that the 1611 King James Bible was not altered?

Here is a list of the deuterocanonical books found in the 1611 King James Bible which "The Pure Cambridge Edition" has deleted:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch

Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

[bibleprotector]

I am confused about your position. What are you referring to as "English manuscripts"? Manuscripts generally refer to hand-written copies produced prior to the invention of the printing press. Are you referring to Tyndale and Wycliffe?

Actually, the "English manuscripts" were being referred to by Candlepower. I am assuming that "English manuscripts" means English copies of the Scripture in the broadest terms.

Also, Greek manuscripts are simply copies of copies of the Greek originals.

Yes and no. Greek copies are copies of the Greek originals, but no it is not "simply" so, because there are variations between Greek copies.

English Bibles are translations from ancient Greek into a modern tongue. Certainly a document in the original language, and dating 1000 years nearer the time of the original is of greater use in determining the original text than is any translation dating from 1500 years after the originals were written.

The Reformation English Bibles were translations of "contemporary" Greek into the English tongue. By using the KJB today we are using something which has points of currency/connection with the present, the Reformation and the original inspiration in Greek.

This idea that God has left it up to man to try to fix up the variations in manuscripts which have crept in over time is incorrect. The entire assumption that we need to turn back to copies coming from the earliest years in the Greek language to somehow find the most accurate form of truth is actually a non-Biblical argument. It is non-Biblical because (1) the Bible says nothing about that, and (2) because it assumes that God has lifted His hand off His Word through time, making modern textual criticism a form of Deism. The proper approach would be to believe that when God inspired, He put into motion by the very words He said, the power to ensure the gathering of His Word in the future, and that in all times through Church history, His people should be adequately served without the need to employ the rationality of godless modernism. And, I think not just adequately or sufficiently, but in time, in line with the spiritual laws of sowing and reaping, scattering and gathering, etc., that there would come again a fullness of proper copies of Scripture in the reversal of Babel (i.e. English becoming global).

You have great confidence in the 1611 English version. Is there some reason for believing it to be better than the earlier English versions of Tyndale and Wycliffe, or than the later KJV of 1769?

The King James Bible (not of 1769, but that version in its entire history, and especially by the fact that it is present today) is vindicatable if it is relied upon. Not only have proper Anglo-Protestant traditions (e.g. Anglicanism, Puritanism, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodism, Salvation Army, Pentecostalism, etc.) all used it without heresy, it is able to be used alone as a basis of Christian faith and conduct without any recourse to the original languages and allow Christians to excel in growth.

I am not claiming to know which of these early English translations is the best of the bunch, and would be willing to say that the 1611 holds that distinction, if the evidence were to support that thesis. My question is, what reasons or evidence lead you to this conclusion?

Yes, I think the KJB is the best translation in the world, and there are numerous reasons leading me to this conclusion. The answer is long and large. Basically, by starting from the Scripture that is received right now, and what it actually says, it confirms ultimately the KJB.

For example, the Bible says,

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19, 20).

Notice now that in reaching the nations, the nations are supposed to be seeing and doing the commandments of Jesus. Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?

“But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (Romans 16:26).

Nations, we are told, are to hear the message of the Scriptures. How can the nations do this with Greek? Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language. The King James Bible alone meets this criteria for the future.

See also Psalm 12:6, 7, Proverbs 30:5, 6, Matthew 5:17, 18, John 12:48, 1 Peter 1:23, 25, Revelation 22:18, 19.

[bibleprotector]

False. It was altered big time. I just downloaded "The Pure Cambridge Edition" from the "bibleprotector" website and began comparing it to the 1611 King James Bible. The 1611 King James Bible contains the deuterocanonical books (also known as "The Apocrypha", but "The Pure Cambridge Edition" has omitted them all. This I noticed immediately. So how can you say that the 1611 King James Bible was not altered?

This comeback cannot be taken as genuine.

1. The Scripture in 1611 is the same today.
2. The Apocrypha is not Scripture, and is rejected in many modern versions as well.
3. The Apocrypha is still available if someone wants to look at it, and yes, it has been printed with the Pure Cambridge Edition by Cambridge University Press.
4. There are tables and other things printed in 1611 KJB that are not printed today, is that also counted as another substantial change (e.g. almanac of how to find the date of Easter)?

The real reason why no actual textual and translational changes in the KJB are mentioned, is because the simply do not exist. The same translation, the same version of 1611, is the one that is being printed today.

[bibleprotector]

Also, to add to my comments, that there is a human (carnal) doctrine which says, "we cannot translate fully 100% over from one language into a receptor language". This may be a fact when considering mundane works, but we are dealing with the words of One here Who said that with him nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). And to show that this is not a presumption, I may quote: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4). The same God who inspired would not, if He is consistent with His nature and what the Scripture actually says, be leaving it up to chance and human endeavour to attempt to make as good as possible translations, without there being the vindication in time that by believing Him, men of God have done well to make a proper translation of the Scripture into the English tongue. So, for the entire Church in the last days there is to be one perfect Bible, which presumes that built upon this foundation that there is to be one Church, a Church which is the gathered remnant of all believers, with doctrinal roots into the Anglo-Protestant denominations.

[Candlepower]

Since when is "age" or "Greek" the touchstone of truth?

The KJV has its roots in Greek & Hebrew, as we know. Since when is your arbitrary selection of certain modern manuscripts the touchstone of truth?

To decide that the KJV, which came into existence 1600 years after Christ, is the one-and-only perfect Word of God smacks of the same faulty (or worse) reasoning of Islam, Darbyism and Mormonism. The founders of each of these systems claimed a special revelation of truth from God centuries after the Canon was closed. Mohammed maintained he received truth in visions. Joseph Smith swore he found it in his hat. And Darby designed it out of thin air. All three claimed they had discovered some long-lost perfect thing. To believe that God's Word finally appeared in perfect form in 1611 is nonsensical; it is sophomoric; it is fanatical.

Suppose I read a book written 500 years ago that (based on documents written 500 years earlier) described a culture that existed 2,000 years ago. And suppose some time later I came across reliable texts written 1,800 years ago that described that same ancient culture. I would be imprudent to count the evidence of that ancient civilization to be more accurately described by the 500 year-old book than by the texts written hundreds of years earlier. And for me to stick by the more modern book just because it was written in my language would be xenophobic, which is synonymous with racist, nationalistic, prejudiced. That wouldn’t be scholarly; it would be bigotry!

Also, there is the KJV’s “Anglican Angle.” That is, it bears the distinct slant of the State Church of England (Anglican). For instance, the KJV uses the English word bishop. Why not say overseer, which is what the Greek word epískopos means? It’s because “Bishop” reflected an office in King James’ Anglican Church. Also, the KJV uses the Greek word Baptize (baptízein). Why not say dip, or immerse, which is the English equivalent? It’s because King James’ Anglicans sprinkled; they didn’t immerse. One scholar wrote, "James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy."

I was raised on the KJV, and I like it. Most of the verses I’ve memorized are in Olde English. I think It's a credible translation of the manuscripts that existed in 1611, and I can step over the Anglicanism. But since it was compiled, many older manuscripts have surfaced that reveal problems with the KJV.

Despite the relatively modern sources for the KJV, and the fact that an Anglican King’s hands are all over it, I’m still very comfortable with the KJV. I think its shortcomings are small enough that they pose no impediment to the Truth-seeker.

I know that many “KJV Only” zealots think I have condemned myself to the Lake of Fire for what I’ve said about the book they idolize. And they can probably twist a verse out of it to satisfy themselves that they are right. The shortcomings of the KJV don’t bother me nearly as much as those who seem to worship it. God hates idolatry.

[mattrose]

The proper approach would be to believe that when God inspired, He put into motion by the very words He said, the power to ensure the gathering of His Word in the future...

Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?...

Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language.

I quote these with boldness added as evidence of my thesis (above).

[bibleprotector]

Since when is your arbitrary selection of certain modern manuscripts the touchstone of truth?

It is hardly arbitrary to point to the KJB, when that is effectively what approx. 400 years of English-speaking Protestant Christianity has used. (Notwithstanding some early decades of some Geneva usage, and recent decades of widespread modern version usage.)

Suppose I read a book written 500 years ago that (based on documents written 500 years earlier) described a culture that existed 2,000 years ago. And suppose some time later I came across reliable texts written 1,800 years ago that described that same ancient culture.

The analogy is not very good, because it assumes that the more recent documents are somehow unreliable, and attributes blind certainty (i.e. the judgment of "certainty") to the old documents.

That wouldn’t be scholarly

Emotive arguments also do not classify what is or is not scholarly.

Also, there is the KJV’s “Anglican Angle.”

Yes, often people descend into anti-Anglicanism etc. rather than a fairhanded approach to the actual merits of the debate. Oh, those wicked Anglicans. Nevermind that it has been Baptists, Methodists and Pentecostals who have used the KJB.

I’ve memorized are in Olde English.

This is mere rhetoric. Old English was spoken by people like Alfred the Great. That era is a millennium before 1611.

Despite the relatively modern sources for the KJV

This same argument could be used for people who make a modern version where its basis critical text is printed in, say, 1977. The issue is not the modernity of the source, the issue is how one views the transmission between the present from the past.

God hates idolatry.

There seems to be a lot of venting and fuming on the subject. The Scripture says, "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." (Phil. 4:5).

[bibleprotector]

The proper approach would be to believe that when God inspired, He put into motion by the very words He said, the power to ensure the gathering of His Word in the future...

Not as if the words were ever lost, but to ensure that in time a perfect form could be had of the entire Bible.

Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?...

Not as if God's words are uncertain, but that there must be a perfectly and complete form to fully obey.

Pr 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language.

Not as if His Word was unable to obeyed, or untrue outside of English or before now, but rather, that it not be yet at some future time in some future dialect that the Word of God be manifestly gathered in its full textual and translational perfection, but already now at hand as the recovery answering the multiplicity of variations and uncertainties which exist in the readings and variant possible senses attributed to the original languages.