introducing Bible Protector

[SteveF]

you have the leading Nazi scholar on your side too.

You're onto me!

[steve7150]

It seems that had the king not interfered and prohibited the 1599 Geneva bible from being printed because it threatened his authority , that the Geneva 1599 would have been the bible of choice, not the government authorized KJB of 1611.

God certainly moves in mysterious ways.

[jriccitelli]

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever"

Isaiah wrote this over 2500 years ago, I believe the transmission of it is as close to the perfect as we can define perfect to mean. This verse is one that I examined letter for letter on the Dead Sea scroll photos, here is a link to the Codex Sinaiticus copy of the same verse:
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

This is faithful empirical ‘evidence’ of His promise and it truly is amazing. It is the KJVO’ist that is ignoring and arguing against all this amazing consistency of the scriptures. In fact this KJVO idea demands that God has ‘not’ faithfully preserved His Word, it suggests God word has ‘not’ been divinely kept until 1611, and has never been divinely kept since, limiting the world to this KJV without any proof of it being the only perfect (divinely approved) translation.
To suggest that God meant each and every scribe would write as if his pen was divinely prevented from making any mistake, would be a very strange thing. To take Gods promise of His Word ‘enduring forever’- to mean that transmission of every translation would be ‘perfect’, would mean a person could move their hand with their eyes closed I suppose and their hand would write out Gods word perfectly (Joseph Smith used a similar method). I suppose this would convince a lot of unbelieving people of God if they felt their hand move beyond their own control as they attempted to rewrite a translation of the bible in their own words. This is obviously not what happens to the scribes hand, yet as we look over all the manuscripts we see a general agreement and faithful transmission of the original, just as if it was divinely controlled – so much an agreement that most of us can only attest that it must have been divinely controlled as it has retained itself so well.

I had a discussion with a couple the other day and they said during the conversation (concerning the Bible) “Oh, it was written by man, it has been changed through time, you know like when someone hears something, and then retell it, then it gets rewritten, till it loses what was really said to start with”
These are intelligent successful people, I suppose you would want to tell them something about the KJV, but I was able to relate about the earliest manuscripts, their ancient dates, the manuscripts accessible photos online, the integrity of modern manuscripts with the ancient manuscripts, etc, etc. I challenged them to at least consider whether they would consider (and believe) the Jesus of the oldest manuscripts.

You have to exercise some faith when reading translations, but we have to exercise faith in the transmission of ‘any’ document or idea. The reader (or listener) has to determine for himself if they believe the words of the speaker. If there was only one source, or one manuscript copy it would be hard to believe, but with so many, and with such a general ‘agreement with so many’ it gives credibility to the belief in a credible source, and faith that the transmission actually seems to have a divine providence ‘over them all’. To expect that there will be no mistakes or omissions in ‘hand written’ copies of such large volumes of work is ridiculous, the overlaying of copies is a practice applied to all manuscripts – mechanically printed – and hand written, as mechanical printing also can leave out whole pages and parts, just ask a print shop employee.

[jriccitelli]

I am one of the first to argue that our English translations are more than enough for salvation, life and understanding. And that Greek translators also have noted they are generally very satisfied that our English translations provide us with Gods pure Word. I also have argued that the KJV defines alot of our English definitions of words and ideas in general. And that English versions 'should' retain an agreeable similitude to the Authorized Version when possible, as it is a part of our natural common English and a beautiful if not also memorable translation.

Yet I have also argued that other versions rather should be used (especially with new believers) because the KJV is hard to read because of the archaic English. I noticed Mormons and some other sub-sects use the KJV exclusively I feel simply ‘because’ it keeps readers a bit confused over the meaning. The difficulty of its English often turns off readers, simply because it is hard to read unless you become accustomed to it. This should not be necessary as the scriptures were originally written in the very common language of the people, and it seems God intended this Himself.

Students of the Word know that studying the Greek adds depth, color and assurance to the student’s faith in many ways, the Greek also gives a ‘reassurance’ of the accurate transmission of God’s Word, and closeness in time to the original writers. The Greek manuscripts leave less ‘to chance’ when doing in-depth study. Acquainting oneself with the Greek and the Hebrew also adds to the assimilation of the student into the culture and period of the writers, and the culture of Jesus Himself (What would it be like to study life in South America or Mexico without referring to Spanish?)

[jriccitelli]

Students of the Word know that studying the Greek adds depth, color and assurance to the student’s faith in many ways, the Greek also gives a ‘reassurance’ of the accurate transmission of God’s Word, and closeness in time to the original writers. The Greek manuscripts leave less ‘to chance’ when doing in-depth study. Acquainting oneself with the Greek and the Hebrew also adds to the assimilation of the student into the culture and period of the writers, and the culture of Jesus Himself (What would it be like to study life in South America or Mexico without referring to Spanish?)
You don’t have to know Greek to be a Christian (thanks to great translations), yet on the other hand I think it repulsive and beyond reason to ‘suggest’ that Greek or Hebrew studies should, or can be avoided (or ignored) in the study of God’s Word.

I do not read Greek, but I have been studying Greek. It is hard to study scripture without some discernment of Greek (despite what you have been saying). It is actually ‘very’ stimulating, intriguing, and helpful (do you ‘ever’ look at the Greek?) the definitions sometimes seem to fit the context better than the English, join together doctrine and go to depths in scripture in ways that our English can’t always do. My own faith was greatly strengthened and excited when I came across full color photos of the Isaiah scroll and even though I was a new Christian, I took a Hebrew translation guide and was able to go letter for letter through a couple of verses, and I found the Dead Sea Isaiah scroll almost right on with our modern versions.

No matter what you take away from studying the Greek or earlier manuscripts, the student should be encouraged to study and search through all they can in the rich heritage we have in so many ancient documents. Discouraging people to do so like your arguments would suggest, is a travesty to learning and knowledge of scripture. Aren’t students in the congregation you know even the slightest bit interested in the Greek Church fathers, the Fathers in general, or the Didache, or early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr?? Most these writers wrote in Greek, and a serious study of these writings usually means some use of the Koine will be profitable. Have you ever looked at the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus (online)? I am intrigued with things such as Tryphos argument with Justin Martyr over the necessity of Elijah appearing before the Messiahs coming, which records in Greek are helpful. Researching works by other Greek fathers and early Church documents usually goes hand in hand with looking into the Greek (or other early language that Church writers used). Is ‘all this just ignored’ in favor of your belief in the perfection of a 1611 English document?

[bibleprotector]

In fact this KJVO idea demands that God has ‘not’ faithfully preserved His Word

Actually the KJBO view is that God has outworked for the recovery of his true Word, even if you point to an old manuscript which may differ from the received tradition. But really, because you are in the present making a story about the past based on extant Hebrew and Greek copies, and never actually resolving out of that what is right, correct and accurate, then it is your modern version side which denies that God has faithfully preserved His Word.

it suggests God word has ‘not’ been divinely kept until 1611,

Preservation is not about having perfect copies throughout history, it is about having perfect originals, and then the recovery of a perfect Bible in English for the future.

To suggest that God meant each and every scribe would write as if his pen was divinely prevented from making any mistake, would be a very strange thing.

It would be indeed. But whereas the KJBO sees the providence of God in gathering from the various sources one exemplar standard, the modern version view says we are locked to only imperfection and never are able to have a perfect knowledge of a fully accurate Bible, no, not even in Hebrew and Greek.

they felt their hand move beyond their own control as they attempted to rewrite a translation of the bible

Both the original inspiration and the making of the KJB did not happen by automatic writing.

“Oh, it was written by man, it has been changed through time, you know like when someone hears something, and then retell it, then it gets rewritten, till it loses what was really said to start with”

Modern version people believe almost the same thing, except that they might still have faith that enough of the "real" words have not been lost despite all the differences in manuscripts, versions and translations.

I challenged them to at least consider whether they would consider (and believe) the Jesus of the oldest manuscripts.

This is not a gospel approach: the Word of God is right now in a language we understand. Of course, the existence of copies of the Scripture that come from early time show that the Bible and Christianity is authentic, but the textual critical method that gives credence to a few old widely ranging Alexandrian sources is inconsistent with the received tradition of the believing Church.

[bibleprotector]

Yet I have also argued that other versions rather should be used (especially with new believers) because the KJV is hard to read because of the archaic English.

It is always the person who claims to know the Greek that makes the argument for the poor benighted class, that they cannot speak for themselves, and must have such a learned champion explain their lowly condition, as if the Spirit of God needed help to talk to the uneducated because God's words are too hard.

I noticed Mormons and some other sub-sects use the KJV exclusively I feel simply ‘because’ it keeps readers a bit confused over the meaning.

This is a wrong aspersion. The KJB believer wants people to use a perfect Bible because the clear, exact truth is there. To imply the opposite, or lump in with the Mormons is unjust.

The difficulty of its English often turns off readers

Really? Perhaps it is love of darkness or unwillingness which is the issue.

If this was true, than the world would pay attention to modern "easy to understand" versions in droves. They do not.

the scriptures were originally written in the very common language of the people, and it seems God intended this Himself.

But English is our common language, and when we read the KJB, we are reading God's use of English. The Holy Ghost is at work giving comprehension to the openhearted, and I suspect that this argument against the KJB is just an excuse by some because they want to believe something else.

Students of the Word know that studying the Greek adds depth, color

It is in fact a bias. To "study Greek" is not commanded in the Scripture. It, in these days, invariably leads to different doctrines and is widely used to support different doctrines than what the Bible states and teaches.

the Greek also gives a ‘reassurance’ of the accurate transmission of God’s Word

Actually, having God's Word in our hands, receiving it in our hearts, and knowing it gives the assurance. The only "reassurance" it appears that comes from Greek studies today is by people are approaching Scripture from a carnal, sight-based foundation. Their "assurance" is in what they see.

and closeness in time to the original writers.

De 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
De 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

The Greek manuscripts leave less ‘to chance’ when doing in-depth study.

This is "mystery" doctrine at its finest. Those "depths" being divined from Greek are not the depths of truth, but of imposing modern, human ideas onto the Scripture. It is like wearing glasses. The Greek is moulded to say and mean what the interpretor wishes. Therefore, nothing is left to chance, but is all to the design of the Greek artificer.

Acquainting oneself with the Greek and the Hebrew also adds to the assimilation of the student into the culture and period of the writers

This invariably means creating a hypothetical framework in the present and imposing those views on how the past is interpreted. It is, in fact, historical revisionism.

Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

We don't ask, "how did the original audience understand this?" etc., we ask, "What is God communicating to us?"

The entire notion of locking the Scripture, its relevance, meaning and perfect existence into the cultural milieu of contemporary context is in fact just a fancy method of unbelief, it is the Gospel shorn of power, for it locks it to the near east or to the first century, and makes as if the deeper, "mystical" impact and quality of the words is inaccessable to us English Bible users.

[jriccitelli]

Actually the KJBO view is that God has outworked for the recovery of his true Word, even if you point to an old manuscript which may differ from the received tradition. But really, because you are in the present making a story about the past based on extant Hebrew and Greek copies, and never actually resolving out of that what is right, correct and accurate, then it is your modern version side which denies that God has faithfully preserved His Word.(BP)

Actually the KJBO view is that God has outworked for the recovery of his true Word…
So God had to speed up the recovery of His Word? Then it was lost, according to 'you'.

…even if you point to an old manuscript which may differ from the received tradition.
Even if, even if it's true? You mean even if they differ we must accept your claim of KJBO, why?? 'You' still have said God has 'not' faithfully preserved His Word in other manuscripts, where as we say He 'has'.

But really, because you are in the present making a story about the past based on extant Hebrew and Greek copies…
Making a story? What story? We have extant manuscripts, even complete Bibles, and we can look at them. You are making up that the KJB is the Only one, we believe God’s Word is preserved in the manuscripts He has kept, just as he said He would. Where as God has never said ‘anything’ about King James.

… and never actually resolving out of that what is right, correct and accurate, then it is your modern version side which denies that God has faithfully preserved His Word.
We can and have resolved it. It is you who do not seem to be able to accept the resolve based on evidence or what is evident. You instead resort to the fabrication of a hypothesis which has no-proof, and then demonize everyone who doesn’t agree. Your claim is pure fabrication, there is no mention in scripture of One such a translation. The Mormons and the Catholic church have much better scriptural support than your hypothesis.

[jriccitelli]

“Preservation is not about having perfect copies throughout history, it is about having perfect originals, and then the recovery of a perfect Bible in English for the future”

So your saying that ‘what God meant by preserving His Word forever’ was by having the originals kept forever? That didn’t happen, and it didn’t seem to be so in the past, even at Jesus’ time. The perfect originals of each writer (?), are you referring to the autographs themselves? And then the recovery of a perfect translation in English, I guess you are not familiar with Joseph Smith’s claims are you?
God could not have meant originals being kept, and copies are never perfect, so your conclusion is that God only meant that in 1600 years He would reproduce One perfect version. But that means that for at least 1000 years or so Gods promise was not being kept? God never said it would ‘reappear’ at some later time. God said it would ‘never’ wither or fall; you are the one saying it withered like the grass, not us.

It would be indeed. But whereas the KJBO sees the providence of God in gathering from the various sources one exemplar standard, the modern version view says we are locked to only imperfection and never are able to have a perfect knowledge of a fully accurate Bible, no, not even in Hebrew and Greek.

The KJBO view says God has not been doing this all along, He only did it once, and that he can’t do it anymore. We have nothing to support your hypothesis. Again, ‘you’ are the ‘modern’ versionist, where we are free to examine all the oldest and available texts. You are the one saying the other manuscripts only produce imperfection; we conclude that the manuscripts have overwhelming evidence available that support their authenticity. ‘Your’ claim locks ‘all’ other versions up as being imperfect to justify the ‘one’ with no evidence to support such; all while saying ‘all the others’ have withered and fallen.

[jriccitelli]

Both the original inspiration and the making of the KJB did not happen by automatic writing.

Did I say automatic writing, of either? No. I said it did ‘not’ happen, and it does ‘not’ happen. Your hypothesis ‘insists’ this sort of thing ‘should have happened' when the scribes wrote, in-order to 'prevent' variant texts. Variant texts ‘do’ happen, and ‘you’ have a problem with that, not us as it can be resolved because of the abundance of texts.

Modern version people believe almost the same thing, except that they might still have faith that enough of the "real" words have not been lost despite all the differences in manuscripts, versions and translations.

No, you believe the truth ‘was’ lost, we believe the truth was ‘never’ lost. We do ‘not’ believe the message was changed, because we ‘can’ look back to the earliest copies. This is exactly the opposite of saying the truth was lost through time, since we are saying we have what existed far back in time.

This is not a gospel approach:

To read Jesus words, and believe, is not a Gospel approach???

The Word of God is right now in a language we understand. Of course, the existence of copies of the Scripture that come from early time show that the Bible and Christianity is authentic…

No argument here, yet if it is authentic then why are you arguing it is imperfect, you are going around and around.

... but the textual critical method that gives credence to a few old widely ranging Alexandrian sources is inconsistent with the received tradition of the believing Church.

A - ‘few’ - ‘old’ - sources, boy you sure have a lot of respect for what are God’s preservation and His promise. Are all the thousands of extant manuscripts to be ignored, given no credence, and all are inconsistent’ with your claim. All historical document, all scripture pre-existing, and all scripture since must be disdained to support your claim, wow. I think I will love Gods Word with all it’s promises fulfilled and every bit of evidence to prove it has stood through time.