introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

bp,

Of course I meant that you will have to prove that the Bible teaches your view in order for me, a Christian, to accept it.

Actually, people are called teachers. They use the Bible to teach from. If teachers are just subjective, and you have your own set parameters of what constitutes proof, then basically it is impossible for you to accept anything that you don't want to accept. "I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth", or will you explain it away?

[steve7150]

"I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth", or will you explain it away?










This is the point which is to show that the KJB 1611 is noted in the scripture of truth. You use words from the bible like this verse, like the word "faith" or other biblical words that apply to Christ or God or things of God and arbitrarily apply it to this particular bible translation with no compelling reason why.

[SteveF]

In relation to our understanding of Greek as compared to 400 years ago you said:

Modern scholars think they know better than what the people did in the past, but whether they do is another issue. The answer is that while INFORMATION has increased, modern scholarship has imposed incorrect INTERPRETATIONS on the data at hand.

That’s quite an assertion you make. It strikes me as something you believe to be the case rather than having evidence. Am I wrong?


How do you reconcile these two statements you made?

There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English.

and

To link back to Greek as somehow a realm or arena for improvement is entirely unnecessary, since it is something barbarian to us

[bibleprotector]

This is the point which is to show that the KJB 1611 is noted in the scripture of truth. You use words from the bible like this verse, like the word "faith" or other biblical words that apply to Christ or God or things of God and arbitrarily apply it to this particular bible translation with no compelling reason why.

First, the Scripture of truth is present generally, and not restricted to the KJB alone.

Second, if you want to know specifically what is noted in the Scripture, you would need an exact text and/or translation. Where or what is this? If merely in heaven, what is the use of it? If on Earth, please identify how it can be accessed today. Thus, the KJB is for us the full and complete access in one singular form the exact words and meaning of Scripture. This in no way diminishes the reality that people may not have have perfect versions or translations in the past. It is sort of like how OT people looked forward to Christ even though He had not come as yet, yet they were "saved".

[bibleprotector]

That’s quite an assertion you make. It strikes me as something you believe to be the case rather than having evidence. Am I wrong?

Evidence of truth is Scriptural. Examining modern philosophy is a different kind of evidence, it is an analysis, what the Bible calls making "righteous judgment". In other words, the Scripture does not spell out every wrong viewpoint, but gives us the truth whereby to assess them. Since modern versionism is based on assumptions not taught in the Scripture, it follows that it can be judged to be incorrect.

How do you reconcile these two statements you made?

There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English.

and

To link back to Greek as somehow a realm or arena for improvement is entirely unnecessary, since it is something barbarian to us

Good question. You will notice that when talking about KJB translators, that is past tense, i.e. that it was good for them to know Greek, and that they did a good job translating, etc. Next, you will notice that when talking about today, and new or modern Greek studies, I am talking in the present tense, saying that it is now something foreign to us.

The point is that there has been a significant body of scholarship which accepted the King James Bible for hundreds of years, and so there is enough to vindicate it on those grounds (i.e. of knowledge of Greek).

In more recent times, there has been a growing body of modern scholarship which uses the Greek in new ways to reject the King James Bible. The modern usage of Greek is based on modernistic and relativistic assumptions. Further, due to the entirely modernistic approach by which Greek is now used (i.e. modernistic higher criticism, modernistic hermeneutics and rationalistic textual criticism, etc.) what is called "scholarly understanding of the Greek" now is in fact a different thing altogether to the traditional and common understanding of the Scripture and its teachings, as was attested to by all accepted English-speaking Protestant denominations (e.g. the combined testimony of Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Holiness, Salvation Army and Pentecostals).

Even though a new Greek methodology was introduced in approx. 1881, it was not until 100 years later that the NIV and the NKJV were seemingly successfully displacing the mainstay of KJB usage. The NKJV was designed as a half measure in between the KJB and modern textual criticism. Even though the NKJV NT does not exhibit much in the area of textual changes, it does continually "use the Greek" to make translation changes.

Basically, it is that the entire field of using the Greek has been so overrun by unbelief and lack acceptance of the perfection of the KJB, that it is providential that there is no requirement today for the Greek: the KJB was translated from the Greek long ago, and all the vindication for it in the Greek has occurred to provide the stable and enduring testimony of the worth and acceptance of the KJB as a premier work, 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.

If a person points to the fact that many people have different interpretations and doctrines, even if using the KJB, that is not reflective of the KJB itself, but of the condition of man. I expect Christians to be able to grow and learn, and that it is God's will for believers to come together to fully correct doctrine in the future, and that true unity of the currently scattered Christians requires the foundation of uniformity in what is actually the Word of truth.

[Paidion]

Here is one of the pages of papyrus 66, dating from about 150 A.D. The King James Translators didn't have access to early manuscripts such as this. This page is John 1:14-21.
Such early manuscripts are more likely to represent the original autographs of the New Testament that those the King James Translators used.
Everything was in capital letters, and there were no spaces between words.

If you examine line 14 (part of John 1:18) and then examine the 8th and 9th Greek letters in this line, you will see something like "ΘC" with a line over it. The first letter is a theta (pronounced "th" as in "thin") and the second letter is a sigma. It resembles a "C" and is pronounced the same as the "c" in "race". Because papyrus was in demand, many words were represented by a first and last letter with a line over it. The overlining indicated that the word was abbreviated in this way. The abbreviated word (in English letters) is "theos" (God). Another manuscript from about the same time, papyrus 75, also has "theos" instead of "huios".

So John 1:18 in these manuscripts refers to Christ as "the only-begotten God" rather than "the only-begotten Son" as in the King James version. The AV has "Son" because the translators correctly rendered the Greek word "huios" as "Son". Their Greek manuscript which the King James Translators use read "huios" but that much later manuscript was probably in error.

[bibleprotector]

that much later manuscript was probably in error

Probably? So, God's people probably didn't have the word of God on this particular until recent years? No wonder there is no modern version which can be probably right because everything is just reduced to humanistic probabilities.

You can believe in a created God, but that is not a Christian doctrine.

Were there no corrupters of Scripture living before or in 150 AD? Why is one unintelligible scrap given the privilege of gainsaying our worthy Bible and standard Christian doctrine?

Were Reformers burnt at the stake so that people's faith in the Bible could be destroyed?

[bibleprotector]

Such early manuscripts are more likely to represent the original autographs of the New Testament that those the King James Translators used.

Yes, I note the modernistic assumption that errors have been prevailing in history, and that the way of the modernistic approach is that it must strive (as much as humanly possible according to their best knowledge) to go back to the same language in which the original documents were written in, and to as early as possible copies.

It is futility to use human principles that are never going to yield reliable results.

And it is so obvious that even an atheist could use the same methodology and come up with the same conclusions, because there is nothing Biblical or godly in the methodology of modern textual criticism. It is merely believing in the present day prowess of man to deal with inevitable error as best as he can. But since such methods are based on flawed assumptions, no wonder the results differ from man to man, as subjective opinion and human limitation are the order of the day.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It is vain to think that God has no hand in the transmission of his truth, and it would be nigh to blasphemy to suggest that the modern textual critical approach is in fact His will and the demonstrated outworking of His Providence. (The good God getting His Word hopelessly muddled through time and now having the help of modern scholarship to minimise, but never eliminate, error!?!)

[backwoodsman]

Since modern versionism is based on assumptions not taught in the Scripture, it follows that it can be judged to be incorrect.

Exactly the same thing can be said of KJV-onlyism. 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. The closest you've got is, essentially, it's obvious to every Christian that the Bible says the KJV is perfect. Well, as it turns out, it's far from obvious to most Christians; in fact, most would say you're really grasping at straws and twisting beyond recognition what little scripture you've offered. If you could just offer some kind of credible evidence instead of just going round and round in circles, it would save us all a lot of time and may actually make for some productive discussion.

[Paidion]

Probably? So, God's people probably didn't have the word of God on this particular until recent years? No wonder there is no modern version which can be probably right because everything is just reduced to humanistic probabilities.

Humanistic probabilities? Probabilities are neither humanistic nor divine. If you toss a die 600 times, a 4 will probably turn up about 100 times. When this is actually tried, a 4 usually does turn about about 100 times. But it doesn't have to do so. It is possible that a 4 could turn up all 600 times. Our whole lives are lived with reference to probabilities. Why do you enter your car and turn the key when you want to go somewhere? Because it will probably start. It might not start. We are willing to sit in a chair because it will probably support us. That need not be the case. Once I saw a man sit in a chair and it collapsed below him.
I know people FEEL secure by believing in "certainties". And there probably are some certainties in life. But let's not have a blind faith in something which is far from certain, just because we want to believe it.

You can believe in a created God, but that is not a Christian doctrine.

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.

No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

This passage refers to two different Individuals as "God"—the Father and the Son. I don't see why you would have a problem with that. The same thing is done in John 1:1 where the Logos is said both to be with God (the Father) and was God (in the sense of being divine).

Many of the second century Christian writers called the Father "the unbegotten God" and the Son "the begotten God". The original Nicene Creed affirms that the Son was "begotten before all ages".
The second verse of the ancient Latin hymn "Adeste Fideles" refers to Christ as "begotten not created". The begetting of the Son before all ages is definitely historic "Christian doctrine", but not the doctrine of many moderns.

Were there no corrupters of Scripture living before or in 150 AD?

In 150 A.D. and before there was no such thing as a "canon of the New Testament". All apostolic writings were read in the churches including Clement's letter to the Corinthians, written shortly after Paul and Peter's death. 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.

Why is one unintelligible scrap given the privilege of gainsaying our worthy Bible and standard Christian doctrine?

First of all it's not "unintelligible". If it were, then it couldn't have been translated, could it. The same thing can be said of the documents which the King James translators used. They may be "unintelligible" to you or others who have not studied Greek. But it doesn't make sense to label the fragment as "unintelligible" just because you cannot understand it.

Also, it's more than "a scrap". It's one of many pages comprising the entire gospel of John. I am in the process of downloading all of the "scraps" so that I have the whole gospel from papyrus 66 on my computer. Then I will be studying it.

Also this "scrap" doesn't "gainsay your worthy Bible" since "your worthy Bible" didn't exist in 150 A.D. 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.

Nor does this "scrap" gainsay standard Christian doctrine. That seems to be a presumption on your part.

Were Reformers burnt at the stake so that people's faith in the Bible could be destroyed?

No. Most of those burned at stake during the middle ages were the so-called "Anabaptists" (Re-baptizers). The Catholics and Protestants considered them "heretics" who did not subscribe to "standard Christian doctrine" concerning the baptism of infants. The Anabaptists didn't recognize infant baptism as baptism at all since the infants didn't have a choice. The Anabaptists baptized only young people or adults on their confession of faith. Thus, from their point of view, they baptized only once.

The Catholics and Protestants who persecuted these disciples of Christ both believed in an inspired Bible. Why would they put anyone to death for believing in the same Bible which they accepted?

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


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."