The Original Manuscripts

[swathdiver]

Who showed that the KJB corrects the TR?

 

Several months ago a friend sent me a sermon audio from a preacher who is a Ruckmanite.  The more I learn about Ruckman the more I dislike the man and thus far have rejected most of what he espouses.

 

If memory serves, Sam Gipp also had a writing or video on it too.

 

Matt:  I do not think they claim it to be inspired as the originals were, just preserved.  However, I do not remember the context of the correction.  I'll have to look it up again.  The few minutes I've taken thus far have produced nothing.

[TheSword]

Matt:  I do not think they claim it to be inspired as the originals were, just preserved.  However, I do not remember the context of the correction.  I'll have to look it up again.  The few minutes I've taken thus far have produced nothing.

 

I've heard it argued both ways, and you're right, not all fit neatly into one line of thought on it. I just haven't found any of them convincing on the whole. In order for the KJV to be simply preserved and not inspired, then it had to have been translated from copies that reflected the original inspiration, otherwise secondary inspiration has to be asserted. I suppose the argument really comes down to whether one believes the TR used for the KJV was a faithful and accurately preserved representation of the originals or not.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Many, many portions of Scripture (many Pauline epistles and several other books) were physically penned by someone other than the given author (by scribe, etc.)

 

Which is probably why the Bible says: "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (emphasis mine).

 

This would place inspiration at the point of verbalization and preservation at the point of completely accurate transference to written media.

 

Meaning that preservation started at the ORIGINAL transcription, not at the first copy.

[TheSword]

Many, many portions of Scripture (many Pauline epistles and several other books) were physically penned by someone other than the given author (by scribe, etc.)

 

Which is probably why the Bible says: "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (emphasis mine).

 

This would place inspiration at the point of verbalization and preservation at the point of completely accurate transference to written media.

 

Meaning that preservation started at the ORIGINAL transcription, not at the first copy.

 

That's an excellent point I hadn't heard before. Some evidence shows (I'd have to go find it again, but I do remember it) that Paul gave some his writers (perhaps Timothy or Luke) quite a bit of freedom and some more direct dictation. Your reference to 1 Pet 1:21 specifically had OT prophecy in mind, which was generally spoken well before it was written, which is part of why it was so highly poetic and figurative and sometimes repetative.

 

I would tend to think, though, that inspiration would necessarily need to carry all the way to the first writing if you believe in verbal plenary inspiration as opposed to inspiration of the message rather than the individual words.

[Ukulelemike]

Its all kind of moot-we have no copies, probably no fragments, of any autographa. We MUST believe by faith that the Lord has provided us His word preserved, not just in English, but other languages, as well. I am a KJV man and I could take pages to explain why, but I won't. But even if you're not, which is your perogative, find ne and stick to it-the only purpose behind multiples is ultimatley to have it say what you want. The multiples used in writing and teaching causes confusion and should be avoided.

[MatthewDiscipleOfGod]

My mind is not made up on whether its ok to only translate from the KJV or from the TR or both.  

 

While I have not studied it deeper, it's been shown where the KJV corrects the TR.  If that is really so, then the door would be closed on the TR.  

 

I wouldn't say the KJV corrects the TR but I would day that it clarifies it. I believe the KJV is without error and because of that it is OK to translate from it into another language. I have heard and seen the Greek Game talks and believe Gipp and others make a good point. I have taken a few years of Greek and the Greek Game really did shed some light on what is going on. I just hope I don't catch my pastor trying to say there are different types of love based on the Greek word used.

[Salyan]

While I have not studied it deeper, it's been shown where the KJV corrects the TR.  If that is really so, then the door would be closed on the TR.  

 

The KJV can't correct the TR - it originates in the TR. How can the translation be greater than that which it was translated from?

*mind boggling*  

[swathdiver]

I found it and listened again:

 

http://www.av1611audio.com/kyle_superiority_english_Bible/2008-01-27-SS_Superiority_of_English_Bible_1.mp3

 

Start around 40-45 minutes and continue until 58 minutes when it ends.

 

As I realized this time around, he was quoting Ruckman and Ruckman's context was that the King James (English) corrects the Greek and Hebrew (Alexandrian and mythical Septuagint).  But then this fellow gives some examples which make sense at the end and before 40 minutes talking about vestures and rainments or something, I really wasn't paying attention while tending to the kids at that point.