You are exactly correct Brother Tim. The people in this camp know no such thing as Absolute Truth. How can there be Absolute Truth when they have varying books that have varying things to say? Which one do you believe? Who determines which one to believe?

God told us in His Holy Word that it would be preserved from this generation forever. Preserved means it does not change. God does not change so how can God's Holy Word change? It cannot.

Every "modern version" of the Bible I am familiar with comes from either the Westcott-Hort or the Nestle-Aland translations. To say these two translations are flawed is to give them too much credit.

When I wallowed around in the horrible pit and the miry clay of addiction I knew no truth. My truth and my reality changed from day-to-day and minute-to-minute. If God's Book were to change as the folks in the second camp would have us to believe it would be no different than any other book and therefore could not have saved my life. I had to have something I could rely on that did not change. I needed Absolute Truth.

Before anyone says anything about the statement I made about saving my life let me say that God saved my soul through the shed blocd of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. However what is in the Bible saved my mortal life. As such I will defend it with that life if I must. I feel that strongly about it.

I pity the poor souls who must look in three or four different books in order to try to determine what truth really is. If each of them differ in some way or another again I ask how do you determine which is correct? Who tells you which is correct? Who tells you what parts to believe and what parts not to believe? What do you do when your so-called Bible you are reading tells you in John 3:16 that God gave His One and Only Son yet the apostle Paul writes that we are all not only sons but heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. If we are all sons then how can God have given His One and Only Son?

What about all the verses that are left out of those abominations? My word! I just don't want to continue in this discussion any longer. I realize what you are saying about defending our position in an attempt to make truth known but what happens when the hearer does not want to hear truth? Did not Jesus warn us about casting our pearls before swine? Does not the Bible say to mark those who cause divisions and offenses and avoid them?

In Christ,
George

If there is evidence when comparing two or more versions that a clear contradiction exists (not just a variance in wording), or within a version itself there is obvious contradiction, does it not behoove the student to examine that evidence and make a determination of truth? A version which is found to be with errors must be reduced to being no more than the product of human effort, without regard to the intent for accuracy.

I can't figure this out... are we finished discussing this or not? Are we finished here or not? Am I allowed to reply or not (oops... too late)?

I will say this though, if I were as critical and demeaning of the KJV as some have been to my view, I would have been booted out of here a long time ago. That seems to be inconstistent. There has been talk about respecting each other's opinions, yet words are cast around like "abomination." Hmmmm, just a thought.

George, I can understand your frustration with continuing, and that is obviously your choice, but I would ask you not to terminate the discussion for the rest.

I want to make two points:

First, if someone is a scorner, I will not discuss the issue with him. I can direct to a board where I took enough abuse from one man that I have ceased (for the most part) communicating with him. I do not respond to his spewings. If it is evident that someone has hardened their heart in the issue, it will do no good to continue. I do not see either Nate or GreekTim in this light.

Second, please be careful with the "swine" quote. These are brethren, no matter how wrong we believe them to be. They have not been divisive (in my opinion). I believe (sorry to be blunt, Nate and GreekTim) that they are younger, weaker brethren that have the potential to be mighty if they come to realize all that God has provided with His Pure Word. If we fail to accomplish that by our best efforts at exhortation then we must leave them for some other to reach. If we drive them off by being the kind of vindictive narrow-minded self-righteous people that too many KJBOs portray, then we will bare the responsibility of that before God.

GreekTim, I can't put into words carefully enough to not offend you or especially Nate (based on his testimony), but I ask that you receive what I say without thinking that I am attacking you personally. The NIV is a perversion of the truth. It is abominable. It is false from its conception. It is riddled with error. By association so is the NASB as it is based generally on the same devilishly corrupted sources. Its only real difference is that it more accurately translates those corrupted sources.

No, you have not taken any cheap shots at the KJB, and I appreciate that. If you have sincere doubts as to its accuracy, and want to debate that publicly or privately, I will be glad to do so without offense. While I would be dishonest if I said that I wouldn't try to talk you into believing as I do for that is my whole purpose, I would approach the discussion with the sobriety that it deserves.

Has anyone here besides me ever read the book, "The Journey From Texts to Translations?" Let me give you the publishing information on it in case anyone is interested.

The Journey from Texts to Translations
Paul D. Wegner
Baker Academic
An imprint of Baker Books
a division of Baker Book House Company
P O Box 6287
Grand Rapids, MI 40516=6287
ISBN 0-8010-2169-3

This is a marvelous book that goes back and traces the history of the English Bible. I must admit it also contains information on the modern "versions" of the Bible. It is well worth reading. Some of the photographs of various manuscripts and fragments are truly striking. As example there is a photograph of the famous Isaiah Scroll that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If you can find a copy of it read it. The one I have is from the second printing of April 2002. Perhaps if you cannot find it on-line your local library may have a copy.

In Christ,
George

1st, let me answer Bro Tim's referral about my Mongolian folks learning English. They absolutely love it - mentioning "original languages" would take them into an ever confusing world, for many reasons: 1- I am not a Koine Greek speaker, 2- I am not a Massoretic Hebrew speaker, 3- I AM a fluent English speaker. Now, it has taken me the better part of 35 years to get to the proficiency level I have in English. That has been attained through much learning (reading, writing, speaking, listening, etc) on a 24-hour-a-day basis. There is not a Greek professor alive that has lived in a KOINE Greek-speaking society all his life, and has had to deal strictly by reading, writing, speaking , and understanding KOINE Greek. All ANYONE hears from these "professors" is "Well, our best GUESS is" or "We THINK that", etc. Since the Koine Greek language died out over 800 years ago, and there are NO Koine Greek dictionaries/lexicons available (everything out there is Classical Greek at best), a person would have to guess about what the correct meaning in the correct CONTEXT is. That would not give a Mongol nomad a solid foundation in trusting and believing on The Lord Jesus Christ. My Mongol herders have seen the blessings and results from an American nation that trusted and relied on the KJB for over 200 years. I'm not about to introduce the mishmash of "we think" etc brought on by this modern-day scholarship, to them.

Now, I agree whole-heartedly with Bros Jim & George. This thread is not about having a preserved Bible, it is about advancing and uplifting intellectualism above faith in the word of God(KJB). I'm sorry, Bro Tim, but I haven't seen the slightest willingness to even consider our scriptural position, from the "other side." Maybe GTim is right, that Bro Jim should put the belief in the KJB as the final authority, on our statement of faith, for the forum.

Let me ask a couple of questions, GTim: On your website, you listed that you were opposed to the KJBO position. Can you tell us how you arrived at this conclusion? I'm particularly interested in knowing if it came through faith, personal study, college-based curriculum, pastoral counseling, or exactly what was the main "clincher." Give us specifics, i.e. books, classes, articles, professors, indicators, etc. Secondly, in your opinion, do you think our KJBO as final authority position will honour God, bring people to Christ, build solid families and churches, or do you think the multiple-version, conflicting manuscripts/definitions, maybe this is correct or maybe that, is going to advance our gospel in a hell-bound society? Think, from the perspective of a person that has not had the church-indoctrination, that most westerners are filled with, and I think you'll understand. As indicated by Bro George, all the mv's come from the W-H or N-A corruptions, and since their inception (1881 or so) have furthered the church-age apostasy foretold in the Bible. As stated earlier, ".....by their fruits, you'll know them."

Nate, we believe that studying the pure word of God - KJB - will give a person everything needed, necessary, and beneficial to worship and serve God today. Our government teaches the Treasury agents how to spot counterfeit currency, by studying the REAL notes for many months, before they are ever exposed to the fakes. The mv's may have some portions of the Bible in them, but remember that the devil poses as an angel of light. If I wanted to disrupt the cause of Christ and create turmoil in the church, bringing out the mv's would be the sure-fire way to do it. Look back at the blessings in our nation, prior to the release of the mv's - the proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'!

Before I respond I would like to remind everyone that my opinion was asked. That is why I am responding and would appreciate my opinion respected just as you express your want of the same courtesy.

This is not all true. Koine Greek died long before 1200 A.D. In fact, Greek has gone through another revision before ever reaching modern Greek.

Secondly and more importantly, lexicons don’t use “our best guess” & “we think that” type of study. That is a straw man which you set up and knocked down. If that were the case, then the translators of 1611 would be just as lost as we are.

This is an interesting story. I am opposed to this position because it places the authority of a translation over the originally inspired text of Scriptures. You yourself admitted that even if the originals were found, you were gonna stay w/ your KJV (cf. God's Word vs. NKJV thread post #46). That to me is wrong on so many levels. The KJVO position leads to a place that I am not willing to go. It leads to a place that I do not believe God wanted Christians to go.

The arrival at my non-KJVO position came through many different facets. But you have to understand my past. I grew up only using the KJV. I mostly quote from the KJV b/c that is what I learned in AWANAS. My dad is a KJVO (not an extremist like you guys though). My Grandfather (the smartest man I have ever met, he had 3 doctorates, 1 in chemistry, 1 in sacred theology, and a phd) was a TR only. That lead to his belief that the KJV was the best translation and that should be used exclusively. So I was surrounded by the KJVO position all my life. But for some reason, I never picked that belief up for myself. I guess it wasn’t shoved in my face like it is in other places (like my wife’s church).

When I got to Bible college, my freshman year I decided to write a paper on the issue. Looking back, I barely scratched the surface, but I studied, did the research, and came to the conclusions myself. That placed a foundation of the KJVO position is flawed. But my professors were not KJVO. They never have been nor has PBC ever been KJVO though we had many students there that were. So I wasn’t indoctrinated either way. PBC stresses critical thinking skills. They would prefer it if you came to your own conclusions on your own. And that is what happened with me. The more I learned at Bible college (i.e. mss variants, proper translation philosophy, & Greek) the more I realized that not only was the KJVO position flawed, but the KJV itself was flawed (my opinion). I found places that lacked any mss support at all & other places that only had a few mss supports for a certain reading. That just solidified for me even more that the TR was inadequate to portray 100% accurately what the inspired originals contained albeit it was close though. Then again all textual compilations like W/H, N-A, & the UBS4r are close. We are only talking about a 3% difference and some of that is word order (which doesn’t matter in Greek).

As a side note, the N-A27 & UBS4r are not based on W/H. N-A27 & UBS4r are eclectic compilations with leanings to the Alexandrian readings, but not exclusively like W/H who only used 2 primary mss. That is a misconception often purported by the pro-TR anti-anything else view. As for the NIV, the NIV didn’t use any of the Greek text mentioned above. “The Greek text presented in A Reader’s Greek New Testament is the eclectic text that underpins the NIV. This text, compiled by Edward Goodrick and John Kohlenberger III, is printed here for the first time. Since this eclectic text does differ from the ‘Standard Text,’ [which is their reference to N-A27 & UBS4r] a few words to clarify these differences are in order.” So there you have it.

As for your final question, I will not argue against the success of the KJV. I will say that the KJVO position can lead to good churches, solid families, and proper evangelism. I will also say that it limits the people to depth of understanding God’s Word. Limiting yourself to a translation means that you are not dealing with the study of the original languages. You see that as ok whereas I see that as very limited in understanding the writer’s emphasis. If we want to have a better understanding of the text, then we should not limit ourselves to a translation that is unable to fully convey all of the nuances of the original language it was translated from. It is not about which language is superior based solely on the number of words it has in its arsenal. That has nothing to do with Hebrew & Greek syntax.

Let me chime in here about the use of the various modern "versions" of the Bible. At best they cause confusion as Mongol Servant stated concerning the people he works with. I will go that one farther and say that it causes confusion right here in the United States.

Very close to my house there is one of the non-denominational Churches. They use various versions of the Bible. The pastors will preach from the pulpit that there is this belief and there is that belief based on their reading of these so-called Bibles. The result is that there are literally hundreds of people in that Church every Sunday who have not the slightest idea as to whether they are saved or not.

Quite often I have found that preachers or authors who use various versions of the Bible do so in order that they may find wording somewhere that supports their position(s). A wonderful example of this concept is Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Warren uses 26 different versions of the Bible in his book. He searched out the various writings until he found one that fit his point. That is just the opposite of what Bible reading and study is supposed to do. A preacher or author is supposed to expound and explain what the Bible actually says and give references to support that fact. While in reality there are far too many Churches and individuals these days that look for something in one of those books that supports their position and then use it.

I have personally witnessed people questioning something that was supported by one version saying that this other version says something different and which one do they believe? The answer they were given is that they have to make up their own minds. Excuse me? God does not change and therefore His Holy Word does not change. It is not for us to make up our own minds as to what we are going to believe or not believe.

Greektim I have a question for you. You are among those who say you believe the Bible was preserved and inspired in the original autographs. Do you believe the Bible or do you make God out a liar? I am serious about this Brother. Witness the following:

(Psa 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

(Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (emphasis mine)

I know I have posted these two verses previously but they bear repeating. The Bible tells us that God's Words are to be preserved from this generation FOR EVER. If the preserved and inspired Bible is only in the original MSS then God is a liar because we do not have His preserved Word. That is a rather frightening thing to make God out a liar. I would not want to be in that position personally. Since the original autographs have been lost for somewhere close to two thousand years that means that we poor mortals have been wandering around aimlessly without knowing God's directions for our lives because they don't exist.

My word, what a concept!

In Christ,
George

I am in 100% agreement with you here, George. I despise the act of switching to many different translations because they say it in a way that fits your supposition. You are right on with this one. That is why I limit myself to 3 options when I preach. My first option is to preach solely from the NASB. My second option is to preach from the NKJV if I feel the translation is more accurate (not if it fits my view better). My third option is to use my own translation. I don’t do this as much, but it helps every now and then for the people to see the text in a strictly literal light.

Before your straw-man is built, I have to say that I do not hold to this statement (unless I misunderstood your meaning). The original autographs were inspired, but it was not God’s preserved Word. It is the source for the preservation of God’s Word. The copies are the preserved Word. Now if you did not mean to mingle these 2 concepts of “preserved” and “inspired” in the “original autographs” then forget that I said this. But I do not believe that the originals are the preserved Word of God. They can’t be b/c we don’t have them as you pointed out.

Later you say that “if the preserved and inspired Bible is only in the original MSS…” Let me stop you right there and say that I do not hold to this. The originals are not preserving God’s Word. They are the accurate recording of God’s Word. What comes from them is the preserved Word – the copies.

Therefore, I don’t see myself as making God out to be a liar. I agree that God has preserved His Word forever. I never said anything contrary. I just do not see that reaching over to a translation for one. If you examine the mss support available, then you can get back to the inspired original. There is your preservation.

I actually feel that you are mishandling God’s Word when you take verses like Psalm 12 & 1 Cor. 13 as prooftexts for your KJVO view (I wouldn’t say that you are calling God a liar, but I would say that you are misrepresenting Him). That is eisegesis; you are taking your view and forcing it upon the text. If you mean to tell me that the KJV interpretation naturally rises from the text, then what do you do about the interpretation pre-1611? The logic of your view would lead to the idea that no one would ever be able to interpret those 2 passages til after 1611. How could they until they knew about the KJV? Now that is a frightening thought - that those passages were inspired but not profitable til post-1611 (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

Neither David nor Paul knew anything about the 1611 KJV. In the rare occasions when David wasn’t exactly sure of what he was writing about (Psalm 22 is the only real example) it was later interpreted for us in the NT. Since that is not the case here for Psalm 12 in the NT, then you must come to the conclusion that David knew full well what he was writing about. After all, Psalm 12 is not that difficult to understand (that is if you keep it in its local & historical context).

It is apparent to me you believe God's Word has been preserved. That leads to the next question: Where? Which version of the Bible do you believe is the preserved Word of God? There cannot be more than one. God does not change and the Bible itself tells us that God's Word does not change.Since the so-called modern versions each differ in some respect which one of them is the preserved Word of God?

In Christ,
George

There is a flaw in the question. Where does Scripture say that there will be only one version? Scripture mentions copies as being the Word of God (cf. Deut 17:18-20). I believe each version of the Bible is the preserved Word of God to the extent that it agrees with the originals. Some don't agree w/ the orginals very well so they should be avoided. Some agree better than others in some places and visa versa.

That is the issue here I think. Your idea of preservation limits you to one version. That is all you know. But there has never been one version. Once you copy by hand, there is no longer one version because man is imperfect. Where does God say that there will be only one version (refering to a version in the way you mean it). Your theory states that God somehow divinely superintended on the TR & ultimately to the KJV to have that preserved version. If that was the case, then I believe that would hold Bible knowledge back. The mere fact that is is frowned upon to examine the original language would argue that Bible knowledge is limited. On the other hand, my theory is that God divinely superintended that the extant mss we have contain the preserved Word of God. The fact that there are so many in existance argues for the divine preservation of the mss. Thus we need men of God to study His Word constantly to portray most accurately the originals. I see the danger there in that man is having a large role in this, but the benefit is that man knows more details about God's Word, the reception of God's Word, the langauges of God's Word, and ultimately God's Word itself.

Again I mention that if the one version founded in 1611 was the preserved Word of God, then why would God allow more mss to be found and studied? That would, in my estimation, be arbitrary of God to do (diminish His soveriegnty), or evil so to confuse the rest of us non-KJV users (diminish His holiness/righteousness), or God didn't know about them (diminish His omniscience). It seems most reasonable to me that since we are still finding mss that God has continued to preserve His Word in the copies of the originals. I am not a philosophizer so I am sure someone will show me the flaw in my logic here.

The only version that should be sought after is the one that portrays the originals the most accurately. That is what preservation will do. If you were to take all of the extant mss, compare them, remove bias, agree on a plausible textual criticism philosophy, then this is very possible. The problem is that men can't remove their bias or agree on a TC philosophy (yet there is still 97% of the text that is in agreement to be original in spite of man's inadequacies). Therein lies the real issue I believe. Not a translation, but what most accurately represents the originals. I think that discussion is more pertinent than a translation made in 1611.

This post was last modified: Sat Apr 26, 2008 01:43 PM by Greektim.

Nate said:

Brother, that is a rediculous statement. The use of an interest or hobby doesn't place anyones learning above Jesus Christ. You came in way too late. take a look back over all of GT's posts to this date. Almost exclusively, they have been born of a higher intellect, Greek this and that, with no solid foundation for anything other than what man cannot understand(The original koine Greek).

The fact of the "interest" of Greek and other MV's has never been the issue, it is the use of these sources for belief in one's doctrine that is the argument.

Yes, the study of the Word of God DOES, help grow, but if your are studying intentionally, or non-intentional corruption of scripture, then how does that help one grow???

Yes you are. If it was not intentional then you wouldn't be posting here or stating your belief. If you didn't want to change my mind, yo uwouldn't be here. What a statement to make. (THIS IS SAID TO YOU GT!!!) This is not a site for "opinion". Did you read the statement of faith, and do you agree with it?

HA! Again, go read the statement of faith. Do you go into an airport and assume anything you want to do and believe is ok with Homeland Security? I don't think they would have the same idea.....

And for you to tell me what "my place is", maybe you ought to look at who runs this site.....

My sentiments exactly!

You changed your tune quick, what changed? I am glad you finally saw this.

How would you like me to come to your house and change your mind about the way yo urun it? Would you accept that?

Very well said!

Yes, we are finished......

END