The NKJV has a different set of errors. I will post examples a little later. My battery is about dead. Even it would not be the counterfeit that it is if it did not defer/refer to the NU so often. The NA would not exist without the WH, and neither would the UBS (aren't they Siamese twins?).
Arrgh! I'm dying!

That is a great misconception of the NA27 and UBS4r. They are eclectic in that they study every mss they have access to. Granted they do have a tendancy to lean towards the older mss, that is not true all of the time. I don't have my UBS4r w/ me (its at the "office"), but I will quote from it later to show that. So they are not twins. That is a false accusation. W&H and the UBS4r are not the same text.

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:20 PM by Greektim.

A translation of God's preserved Word?.......

I think that is a very rational answer, so is the fact that a translation can also be considered a preservation. What you are not defining is exactly what is being preserved, and what exactly God is saying He is preserving. If yo uthink that preservation can only be Greek, then fine, the Greek is preserved, but guess what? Using your own argument against you, The bible never directly says anything about preserving His Word in Greek. If you are going to use silence about something for a defense, then you had better include just about everything silent in the scriptures.

By the way, the bible never declared it wouldn't be preserved in translation, so where is the argument on silence now?

Rationality dictates the more likely of the two arguments. I think you are so set on penned ink and papyrus that you are forgetting that the Word of God is not limited by it. The preservation includes all things within His word, If you feel that translation is not included, then guess what? It is is now open to whatever anyone else believes the scripture is silent on, whatever seems rational to them.

I do not see your point. You said yourself that you do not speak Greek. Then how are you going to read the TR or any other Greek rendition of the NT? I do NOT believe I need the Greek to have the preserved Word of God. I have it in the KJV. Since you cannot read Greek, then you need to go find a scholar to read you the Greek, because what you have in the English is not the preserved Word of God (sic).

Since you do not believe it is the preserved Word of God, then I guess you feel you can settle for "second-best" in the bible.

You're right, I do disagree. I do not presume to say what God would and would not do outside of the context of His preserved Word, that is His will alone.

But this can all be settled with you answering one question:

Do we have the Word of God in the English language?

Just answer it, yes or no.

If yes, then He did preserve His word in the English.

If no, then we do not have the Word of God in the English.

It can't be both ways.

More thoughts on Final Authority, copied from a post I made on a board where the non-KJBs outnumber KJBs:

When the title "Final Authority" is given to something, it is being identified as the place where one goes to get the final answer when there is a difference of fact or opinion. In the context of the issue at hand, there are several options:

1. Most (nearly all) of us would agree that IF we had the unquestionably verifiable original writings, they would without dispute be the final authority.

2. Given the fact that #1 is no longer possible, IF we had verifiable, exact copies of the originals, those copies could rightly be called the final authority.

3. The problem with #2 is the phrase "verifiable, exact". Therefore any copies of the manuscripts must be considered based on some criteria:
A. Is there evidence that the believing church (as opposed to the false church, e.g. Rome) has used these copies throughout history?
B. Is there evidence that the text of the copies has historical reference? That is, is there evidence that early writers made reference to the text using the same wording as is found in the copy?
C. Is there evidence that the copy been replicated in such a way that the wording of the text has been faithfully preserved in form?

If these criteria, and others that might be added, are met, then those copies could reasonably be the final authority.

4. Assuming that #3 is determined to be true and available, IF a translation could be faithfully made, so that in no place was the wording of the copies (from #3) altered to the extent that a point of meaning was lost or changed, then that translation could arguably be called the final authority, especially for those who had no access to or skill in understanding the original language copies.

Of course, the issue is not that simple. We each have, to varying degrees, evidence that backs our point-of-view. In the end, it comes down to the confidence that we have in the Bible that we read, study, and live by. If I have come to the place that I am willing to face God, and be judged based on my choice, then nothing anyone else can say should matter. If on the other hand, I have some doubt, it would behoove me to seek the truth that would bring me to complete confidence.

My choice to follow the KJB is based on #4 above. I am confident that it is everything that I need to guide me in life. For me, the manuscripts upon which the KJB is founded are as much the final authority. However, I cannot read them for myself. I cannot base my faith on the reference tools that others may use to research words and meanings. I find no benefit in that. I can fearlessly stand before my LORD and Savour, believing that He will reward that confidence in His promise to perfectly preserve His Words and to communicate them in a language that is understandable to me.

While I respect those who sincerely hold to a different set of rules or a different version, I will attempt to the best of my ability to convince them to alter their belief to match mine. This may sound arrogant, but it is sincere. We who are Christians are expected to compel those who believe differently to change their beliefs to our beliefs. We do not accept that line that "it does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." Many would call this arrogant. In that same way, we debate with other believers who have, in our view, an unbiblical fundamental doctrine. If we truly believe that a person cannot work for his salvation, that it is a gift of God, then we will and should vigorously defend that belief, knowing that those who believe otherwise are either lost, or confused and weakened by that confusion.

Do not misunderstand! I do not equate the lack of confidence in the KJB as the exact Word of God with having false religion. I am certain that this lack is error, and those who do not trust in the KJB are weaker in knowledge than they would otherwise be.

I believe that those who use other texts can be faithful Christians just as I believe that there are true believers in other denominations. Depending on the denomination or version, there may be more or less serious errors, within certain boundaries.

I hope that this is received with the heart-felt intent that it is written.

I did not mean to imply that a translation was God preserving His Word. You asked what we are reading and my reply is that it was a translation – the translation being based on the copies of the original which is the preserved Word.

I don’t think it is rational to say that a translation can be considered preservation. But that is based on linguistic issues. You say I have not defined what is being preserved. I thought that was settled back in the inspiration portion of this discussion. God is preserving the original writings. Since that is what is inspired, then that would be what is preserved.

I have also repeatedly stated that God is preserving His Word through the extant mss. You have even confirmed that in post 13 where you say “Greektim believes that the bible cannot be preserved outside of the Greek.” So I am not sure where the misunderstanding of my view is.

While this is true directly, indirectly I find it to be false. After all, God commanded the King of Israel to make a copy of the Law (Deut. 17:1. Obviously the copy was to remain in the original language. Of course here the language was Hebrew not Greek.

Actually, the Bible never declares that preservation will actually be written down on earth on paper. That is just a rational assumption that I even make. (I bet I just opened another can of worms)

I think you are set on printed ink and the TR. So we are both biased and subjective on this issue.

God is not limited by anything, you are right. Nor is God’s Word (that is ruling everything that is contrary to God and His character). But I believe based on linguistic reasons, that God intentionally limited preservation by making English limited. If He wanted to make English a perfect preservation language, then a word for word translation would be possible. But it is not. Therefore God made English limited.

My point was that you were accusing my view of necessitating us to rely on Greek scholars. But I was trying to show you that you do the exact same thing in a translation. You are unable to read the text yourself (the case w/ most Christians) therefore you must have scholars to translate it so you can understand it. Thus your view of preservation necessitates the reliance on Greek scholars as well.

When I said I do not speak Greek, I did not mean that I cannot. But even trying to speak Greek is impossible to a point. We are not absolutely sure how certain letters and diphthongs are pronounced. Again, that is not necessary since Greek is a written language not an audible language like Hebrew. It was meant to be written and studied.

I am sorry but that question is loaded and cannot be just answered with a yes or no (I should be a politician ). You are assuming something that I don’t agree with.
1) Do we have the Word of God today? Yes
2) Do we have the Word of God in the English language? Yes, but only to the extent that it agrees with the inspired, original autographs.
3) Do we have the Word of God preserved in the English language? No, because English was made by God to be inadequate of ever fully communicating such truths from the HOT and the GNT.

Again, I apologize for the length. There was just so much to respond to.[/u]

Brother Tim, I appreciate what you said there. In fact, one thing that I greatly respect from the KJVO camp is their ferver for the Word of God, its study, and its accuracy. I wish more non-KJVers had that kind of zeal.

As for #4, I find that to be impossible.

With God limiting English as impossible to be a perfect recepter language, it would be impossible that a translation could be made into English where there the wording of the copies of #3 (which I agreed with for the most part) were not altered to the point that the meaning was lost (I hope I said that right, but it is late and things are making sense right now). English can never completely communicate everything in the original text.

I guess what gets me with this debate is that you are advocating a translation. That just seems impossible (limit made by God) that the originals could be perfectly communicated in a receptor language like English.

I feel that the debate should rest in the argument over the best mss and which compilation best reflects the originals (TR vs. everything else).

This post was last modified: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:23 PM by Greektim.

Tim, twice in your last post you said that it was impossible for God to use English to accurately convey His Word, if I read you right. It's late here too, but I drank some good coffee (whups, is that a sin?) , so no sleep for the moment.

Let me clarify (lack of sleep makes this a necessity). What I mean is that it is impossible for English to 100% convey everything in the original language. Even a word for word translation would fall short b/c English doesn't have the same nuances as Greek or Hebrew. Words can have a completed meaning or a continuous meaning to them but they are usually given the same translation. What I am say is that it is impossible for God to use English to convey 100% but God made that limit by making the English language the way He did. Since it was He who limited the language (being the source), then God cannot contradict Himself. This is kinda like the question: can God make a stone so big He cannot pick it up? No because God cannot contradict His character. I am not saying God is incapable. I am saying God has made limits to the English language. God is capable of making a language that could convey fully the original text, but He didn't. I hope that makes things more clear.

With all that you have said, I believe it is very clear that you beleive that there is no preservation outside of the Greek.

So the determination of preservation is solely reliant upon whatever language man was speaking during the inspiration..........interesting.

And your rationale is more accurate than others why?

I never said anything of the sort. On the contrary, I believe my position debunks this accusation. I do not believe God is limited by ink and papyrus as you do. You believe that their can be no preservation through translation. I say God is not limited by man's translation. I say that there are inentionally corrupted manuscripts, not misinterpretation.

Umm...except for translation, huh?

This is a very bold statement sir. You are making a claim about God outside of scripture.

Point taken, but you are not seeing my point. My view is that the work is already done for us. We do not need to keep going back and reinventing the wheel as you seem to believe. That meaning that I do not have to carry around a fluent Greek expert on my back simply to get the preserved Word of God every time I want it. By your own argument and admission, if yo uwant to read the preserved Word of God, then you must do that vey thing. Although I find it contradictory to your above statement: "But even trying to speak Greek is impossible to a point." Not to a Greek ,I bet.

It is amazing though how we can be so close yet so far away. Your belief necessitates you to believe you need to learn Greek, even though by your own admission even if you do in fact learn it, it won't do you much good. It as if you beleive the Word of God stopped in the 16th century, and we are just here in limbo on the whim of fate to get us into heaven since we can no longer be sure what God wants us to do in our ignorance.

This is only important to a linguist, although I think he would do a thorough job of confusing himself in the process instead of having revealed to him the truth of such matters. It is almost like you believe God to be limited by languages, and yes, those languages He created for different people at the tower of Babel's destruction.

HA! I completely agree with this statement. BUT.. where we seem to disagree is just exactly who is it left up to, to determine what agrees? Or is faith somehow involved? Neither you or I are enough of a Greek scholar to tell directly. The question is, who do we believe was enough of a scholar to translate it accurately? I believe we have that in the KJV, all things considered. And if I believe it is good enough, then I also have to believe that it is God preserving it, so that I may read it. God's Word as revealed to my and everyone elses heart can be given to me whether I read the Greek or the English. If I get something different from one to the other, then one is wrong, obviously the English (Of course I would be reading an MV if I was wrong though, lol) would be the incorrect one.

However, on the flip side of this coin, I believe you are avoiding a direct answer. You are avoiding the admission of an accurately translated English bible and which one is the most agreeable to the OMSS's. It is very simple Tim, and you need to come to terms with it. You cannot avoid it all your life if you never some to speak perfect 1-2nd century Greek, which you nor I ever will. You either will obey God's Word according to some English translation, and have faith that what you are reading is the Word of God, or you will constantly be at odds, and never be able to stand for anything because you cannot with confidence say, "Thus saith the Lord". Why? Because you will not be able to "prove" what it says in the greek. If you intend to be a preacher or an exhorter, then you need to get the confusion out of your mind. You cannot go around preaching greek to everyone. They won't understand you. Nor should they. That is not what God intended. If you just want to be a bible student all your life, then i say go for it. But you had better be careful about your preaching to others. Because if you cannot say for 1%00 certainly that what you are reading out of your English bible PERFECTLY coincides with the original greek, then you are guilty false exhortation according to your own laws concerning God's Word.

Then you better not preach out of it, or teach out of it. I am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with this. God preserved His Word, if He did not preserve His Word in the English language along with any other language translated from the TR line, then we cannot have the Word of God. To say other wise is a contradiction.

Love in Christ,

Jim

I am posting my NKJV error list on the thread called "God's Word vs. NKJV". It is an older thread, so my first post as of today is on page 3, #45. It might be worth it, Tim, to scan the earlier stuff, but as usual, it is wrought with worm cans.

See you in the a.m., God bless you everyone! (Tiny Tim)

So my view is not as unclear as it seemed. That’s good. But not Greek only obviously. Hebrew and Aramaic as well.

Does that mean you agree or disagree. I also said that it is impossible to know why God chose a certain language. We can’t know His mind fully especially when He has not revealed something.

I do not believe I said that God is limited by ink and papyrus. I don’t even think I said that you think God is limited by printed ink and the TR. You pointed out my mindset and I pointed out what I thought your mindset was.

Again, since it was God that made these limitations and God cannot contradict His character or His laws, then yes translations are limited. But God made it that way.

I think you should study the Greek language a little more. Modern Greek is far removed from Koine Greek. Just as Koine Greek is removed from LXX Greek (another way to predate the LXX because it was the next stage of development after Classical Greek). Modern Greeks can speak modern Greek. Modern Greeks can probably speek Koine Greek (but again we don’t know how to pronounce everything). Pronunciations don’t determine readings though.

My own admission never stated such a thing. It is no good to speak Koine Greek cause we don’t know how things were pronounced. But reading it is not a problem. Understanding the meaning is not a problem. Again, further study of the language would in fact help here.

Again, since God is the source of the language, then God has the right to restrict those languages. Therefore, I believe that God is only limited to languages to the extent that He has restricted the languages. God cannot contradict Himself. God is limited in many regards. He cannot commit sin. He cannot go back on His Word. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot contradict His character. In this case, God cannot use English as a perfect receptor language because God has limited it.

The question I would then ask you is what is an accurate translation in your opinion? Also, is such a translation linguistically possible?

I am not confused like you seem to think. A major part of preaching is explanation. In that way I am preaching Greek to them.

I can say that what I am reading in English does not perfectly coincide with the Greek 100% w/o false exhortation (it does come close though). If there was perfect translation, then why do you need a preacher to explain the text? The qualification of being apt to teach would be negated by the Word of God being perfectly understood. But that would be extra-Biblical and thus false exhortation.

I can preach out of it as long as I explain it. That is my point, all translations need some explanation to go with them. Why? Because they don’t fully communicate what was in the original language.

Shew, that was a lot of quotes and responses. Is this a fruitless discussion for everybody (fruitless not meaning that we are going to convert each other)? Personally, I find this to be very insightful.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:39 AM by Greektim.

You have provided no scripture whatsoever to support this claim. Where did God make these limitations? Waht character and laws, described in the bible say anything about making a translation of His Word?

Let me put this forth as even further evidence of translation. Tongues. The Holy Spirit sat on the apostles and gave them cloven tongues as of fire. Why? To translate the audible gospel of Jesus Christ. Are you saying that the buck stopped there? That it was enough to give the gospel at pentacost, but it was no longer necessary to give a written word after that effect? Then that is almost as if saying we never should have had God's word in ink in the first place.

Go back and reread all of your posts. Just as you have made yourself so clear that there is no preservation outside of the Greek, you are also making it very clear that you believe that preservation can only exist on ink and paper. How else do you expect it to be preserved if that is in the only medium that it is given? You have lain no other claim to preservation outside of the originals. Hebrew obviously is only preserved in Hebrew as it was only for the Jews and they were given the oracles. GREEKS WERE NOT GIVEN ANY ORACLES. The simple fact that the Word of God was given in Greek is evidence enough that it was intended for ALL mankind. And, if God guides, like He did in the KJV translation, then we have a faithful rendition of the Word of God fro mthe Greek ,with no doctrinal differences from the correct Greek, which the Alexandrian line of mss's are NOT.

First, I have no need to learn Greek. Second, I am well aware that Modern Greek and Koine are very different. THAT is the whole point I have been trying to make. But, know this statement, you have just said above, you follow it with another statement soon thereafter:

OK, now i need to quit posting, because my frustration in going to get the better of me. Do have any idea of how contradictory all of thses statements are?

You say that modenn Greek is far removed from Koine, which is correct, then you state that I should "learn" Greek a little more, which makes no sense, then you say that you can preach out of it as long as you explain it (the English), but you just said that koine greek, the very language the NT is given in, cannot be spoken any longer, but you say it can be read.

Then you say:

Wow, with all of that Greek, one must get really confused about what they believe. Amazing how much digression can occur from what people consider the "basis" for languages, and how structural the words and mechanical they are, yet be so different. I think Greek may be the great paradox of our faith then, shouldn't it be?

LOLOLOL. I will agree with that!........... Just kidding!

Tim, all joking aside, if your preaching brings you to a exposition on how Greek does this, and Greek does that, then you are not preaching. Maybe you should stick to being a teacher in school or something, because you are going to lose an audience from the pulpit. People come to worship a Holy Risen Saviour, not to hear what you believe agrees with the Greek or not.

I never said anything about needing a preacher to explain text. I will admit that sometimes I use Strong's concordance and Matthews 1828 dictionary to explain what some nouns mean, but that does NOT mean that what I am reading contradicts the Greek. The Greek dictionaries are used for clarification, not for guide in interpretation from the manuscripts.

Anyway, If I don't have the perfect Word of God then why do I read the bible at all in English?

By your statement just now, if I come across something that is not 100% in line with the Greek, then I am exhorting falsely. This being said, you have said that the English bible is not a prefectly preserved translation, then therefore, I do not have the perfectly preserved Word of God in the English bible. That being said, I have to throw my bible away! Do you hold God's Word so insignificant that you would believe it to be ok to have a flawed translation? If I truly felt that I did not have 100% God's Word, then please explain the purpose ion having it.

God says:

What does that mean? Does that mean what it says it means, or is the greek mistranslated? Does that mean that now that I read it in English, I now have the obligation to go find the original manuscripts, interpret them and then i will be able to understand doctrine, and be able to reprove brethren and instruct myself and others? Or do I have what God promised I would have in the ENGLISH bible, and that is good?

The problem is that you CAN'T explain it. You don't even understand it. How can you say you can read something, but you can't speak it?

And you will do a better job teaching out of the Greek, than the 54 scholars did in translating the KJV? Isn't that arrogant? The KJV, and you have to admit that the MV's also, can not communicate the Word of God to the English speaking race of the world.......

Yes, I find this VERY fruitless. I find no insight to it at all except for someone telling me that the English bible is floundering around waiting for a Greek scholar, every time it is read, to verify it's accuracy.

Your argument has a fundamental flaw. No greek "scholar" today will agree on what the mss's say. Even many of the Greek mss's also disagree with each other, so the Word of God must be lost there too, huh?

Your point in this argument defies common sense and rationality. As Paris Reidhead confirmed waht I said earlier in my posts, "You don't have to go around trying to make His (Jesus Christ's) doctrine fit in with what you learned in school, all you learned in school is one fallen-head teaching another fallen-head."

It was true then, and is true today. "Scholars" do such a good job of butchering the fundamentals of faith, that they don't have a clue what faith is. It is out the window. It is substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. But scholars need to "see" and they have to have "substance", and they cannot include "unseen" and "hope". They need "proof". It has to defy God's Word for them to be convinced of their correctness.

Yes, my words are harsh, but they are true. I please with you to please put aside all of this head instruction and see God for who He is, a living God, who is not limited by what man can do, as you said you agree with. But at what point do you start using your faith? And where do you use it? If it does not begin with the Word of God, then where will it lead you?

Love in Christ,

Jim

Since you consider this to be VERY fruitless, then I am not going to continue to respond in this thread unless Brother Tim or others want to keep the discussion going. Personally, I did find it intriguing and insightful. I hope there are no hard feelings, Jim. I just considered this iron sharpenning iron. Even though a consensus was not achieved between the 2 views, we have (at least I do) a better understanding of the opposing view. So in that way it was fruitful for me.

I do understand, and there is absolutely no hard feelings. What I find very fruitless is the questioning of the fact that God's Word is preserved for us to read through the English language. I willl never believe that, so it is fruitless to discuss it, or change another's mind on it. My sincerity and defensiveness does not stem from arrogance, and I truly do not think yours does either. Mine is because of my undying dedication to a loving Saviour who died for a wretched filthy sinner like me who deserves Hell and damnation.

If this debate were about anything other than biblical matters I would not have any problem with your position as it wouldn't really matter in the overall scheme of things.

You just have to understand my dedication to a Holy, Immutable, Risen Saviour. If I am to believe that what I am reading in my daily studies does not give exactly what it claims to give me, then I am not seeing my Saviour in the way He is, and I am wrong. And I just cannot accept that. It goes against ever scripture I have learned.

Debating is fine as long as it glorifies God and both points are not a fundamental issue. But I find often, if not all the time, that the debates I end up getting in are very much fundamental issues. I find it very fundamental that the KJV bible is the core of my faith in practice and belief. We know Jesus Christ, only through scripture. And we only know scripture through the English bible, just as a person speaking Russian only knows scripture through a Russian translation. And we can only have faith that God indeed preserved His Word for us to have through a translation. Otherwise my dedication is no longer a dedication. I cannot stand on a rock that is not a rock. And a rock is not a rock if it is questionable.

Love in Christ,

Jim

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:16 AM by Jim.

Tim and Jim, I am running to catch up, but Tim I tripped on something you said in post #44,

Last time I checked, there were preachers in the NT churches. They had the original language, right? Why then the need of a preacher?

I will respond to different points by posting in pieces. I need to read the rest of the epistles from each of you before possibly repeating points.