Archaisms in the KJV.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 12:04 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The great problem that I have with the position expressed above is that it completely misses two important facts:

1.  That the King James translation and the "modern translations" are translated from two DIFFERENT textual SOURCES.  (Even so, I would contend that the debate is NOT even really a translational debate, as much as it is a TEXTUAL debate.)

2.  That the Biblical DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION should inform our decision concerning which textual SOURCE to accept.

11 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 I see your points, but let me ask why we can credit God for preserving Manuscript "A", but not Manuscript "B" if both mss. are ancient & we don't know who wrote them when, or what their sources were.

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

[robycop3]

12 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

  I believe it's plain that God said He'd preserve His word for all time. And He forbade men to subtract from or add to it. And I believe that prohibition includes deliberately-bad private interpretations. And I believe Satan attempts to cast doubt on God's word, which is why he created the KJVO myth, to attempt to smear newer English Bible translations.

[HappyChristian]

Except that those newer translations DO subtract from God's Word. The devil does indeed attempt to cast doubt on God's Word. He has since before the fall of man. He didn't create any  myth regarding the KJV...other than the myth that the modern versions are "better."

[robycop3]

12 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You can't see that I've actually been trying to help you. The only sarcasm that I purposely committed was my use of text-spelling in a previous answer to you...and even that was meant to help you.

Can you see that in your last response to me, you did the exact thing that you accused me of?

1. You accused me of being King James Only...which is a put-down coming from you since we all know your position on the issue.

2. You tried to shame me by saying that I must be a fan of Gail Riplinger, and then you likened me unto her. That was another put-down attempt. However, I must say...you're apparently much more familiar with her than I am.

3. You then attempted to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I had no "REAL" answer. 

You apparently didn't appreciate me misquoting you, because you responded with personal attacks against me. Here's another one for you...these are your words...

Now imagine how God must view it when he is misquoted...

 Sorry if it came across as an insult,  but there are some facts about God's actions that, while not plainly stated in Scripture, are clearly implied.in it. An example is the "translations" issue. As God created and maintains all languages,  I believe it's implied that He places His word in each of them.

 As for Riplinger, yes, I've read 2 of her boox, so as to "know the enemy". Her material is about as reliable as a Paul Manafort affidavit.

[DaveW]

How is it in any way profitable for any version to either remove verses or even if they leave the verses in they add a note that says something like "not found in the better manuscripts"?

And by the way, they have ABSOLUTELY no basis for claiming a verse is not found in the better manuscripts, because they have no basis for claiming they are better.

All it does is casts doubt on the Word of God.

Genesis 3

 1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

[No Nicolaitans]

3 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 Sorry if it came across as an insult,  but there are some facts about God's actions that, while not plainly stated in Scripture, are clearly implied.in it. An example is the "translations" issue. As God created and maintains all languages,  I believe it's implied that He places His word in each of them.

 As for Riplinger, yes, I've read 2 of her boox, so as to "know the enemy". Her material is about as reliable as a Paul Manafort affidavit.

I wasn't insulted whatsoever.

3 hours ago, DaveW said:

How is it in any way profitable for any version to either remove verses or even if they leave the verses in they add a note that says something like "not found in the better manuscripts"?

And by the way, they have ABSOLUTELY no basis for claiming a verse is not found in the better manuscripts, because they have no basis for claiming they are better.

All it does is casts doubt on the Word of God.

Genesis 3

 1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

I thought the basis was that they are supposedly based on "older" manuscripts...aka...older is better.

I'd much rather attempt to drive from Georgia to California in my wife's 2010 Jeep Compass than my 1998 Ford Escort ZX2. Older doesn't automatically mean better. 

Our son is 8; I'm 52. He can get around a lot better than I can...

Last year, we replaced our roof, heat and air system, and water heater...because the older ones were no longer any good...

Earlier this year, we had to replace our stove...the old one wasn't any good any longer...

A couple of centuries ago, they used to bleed people in an attempt to get rid of health problems...I'll take today's newer health knowledge...

London used to have their sewage running down the sides of their streets...I'll take today's newer sanitary sewage systems...

Mark 16 doesn't belong in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts...

Doctrine is different in newer Bible versions that are based on those older...aka...better manuscripts...

robycop3 says that he has been battling against false doctrine for the last 40 years...

Hmmmmmm...now that's interesting.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

20 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The answer to you question requires a study concerning the Biblical doctrine of preservation.  In that study the following questions would be answered --

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?

As a corollary to these questions, the following questions would also need to be answered --

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word? 

Having done this study, and thereby having Biblically answered these questions, I have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which textual source is good and which is bad.  As such, I also have a Biblical foundation upon which to make appropriate decisions about which translation from a given textual source is good and which is bad.

8 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  I believe it's plain that God said He'd preserve His word for all time. And He forbade men to subtract from or add to it. And I believe that prohibition includes deliberately-bad private interpretations. And I believe Satan attempts to cast doubt on God's word, which is why he created the KJVO myth, to attempt to smear newer English Bible translations.

As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same:

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?  Most certainly.
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?  In a "jot and tittle" manner.
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?  To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation.
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?  For the sake of His people.
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?  Till heaven and earth should pass away.

Concerning the corollary questions:

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?  He is VERY STRONGLY against it.
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word?  Most certainly.

With these answers, I expect the following:

1.  The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages.
2.  These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures.
3.  The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another.  (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.)

Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions:

1.  Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil.
2.  Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt.
3.  Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.

[robycop3]

  Well, Sir, by the same token the KJV has been supplanted by newer, better translations that are in OUR language style & vernacular.

   And, BTW, I'm not necessarily in the "older is better" manuscript crowd. But neither am i in the "more material = better ms." crowd.

[robycop3]

8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As you have given answer above to my questions concerning the doctrine of preservation, allow me to do the same:

1.  Did the Lord God promise to preserve His Word?  Most certainly.
2.  If He did, in what manner did He promise to preserve His Word?  In a "jot and tittle" manner.
3.  If He did, to what extent did He promise to preserve His Word?  To a generational extent, that is -- for each generation.
4.  If He did, for whom did He promise to preserve His Word?  For the sake of His people.
5.  If He did, for how long did He promise to preserve His Word?  Till heaven and earth should pass away.

Concerning the corollary questions:

1.  What is our Lord God's viewpoint concerning manmade alterations to His Word?  He is VERY STRONGLY against it.
2.  Does our adversary the devil pursue efforts to alter the truth of God's Holy Word?  Most certainly.

With these answers, I expect the following:

1.  The Lord our God has and will make certain to preserve manuscripts (not necessarily originals) that contain the precise wording of His Word in the original languages.
2.  These preserved manuscripts and copies thereof will be passed down generationally, first through the children of Israel for the Old Testament Scriptures and through the true church of the Lord for the addition of the New Testament Scriptures.
3.  The devil has and will work to motivate various manmade alterations and corruptions unto the precise wording of God's Word, thus we should expect to encounter both pure Scriptural manuscripts and corrupt Scriptural manuscripts in competition with one another.  (Note: This viewpoint would be defeated if we find that the Lord our God has promised to PREVENT the existence of any alterations or corruptions to the Scriptural manuscripts of His Word.)

Even so, I am compelled to following conclusions:

1.  Not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted as the truth, for some of them contain corruption by the work of our adversary the devil.
2.  Since not ALL Scriptural manuscripts can be trusted, I must discern which are valid and which are corrupt.
3.  Any individual who claims that ALL manuscripts are valid simply misunderstands the reality of the devil's work of corruption in this matter.

  But now, WHO among men decides which mss. are completely valid & which ones are corrupt, when confronted by a trunk full of ancient Scriptural mss?

 

  I believe JESUS gave us good reason to not automatically dismiss a Scriptural ms. based upon where it was found, or material being seemingly added or omitted, without SOUND, POSITIVE evidence of corruption.

   Jesus' prime example is in Luke 4:16-21 when He read aloud in the synagogue in Nazareth from a vorlage copy of Isaiah. What He read does not match Isaiah 42:7 nor 61:1-3 all that closely, but he called it "this Scripture", which ends any valid argument against it. And in several other quotes of OT Scriptures, Jesus did not follow what's in the Ben Chayyim text used to make the Old Testament in most Bible translations. And again, there's simply no questioning Scripture as presented by Jesus.

[DaveW]

16 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Except that those newer translations DO subtract from God's Word. The devil does indeed attempt to cast doubt on God's Word. He has since before the fall of man. He didn't create any  myth regarding the KJV...other than the myth that the modern versions are "better."

Funny how Mr Roby won't address this, even though you pointed it out, as did I?

He talks about taking away from God's Word, but ignores the fact that the majority of MV's either actually remove verses or at least imply they should be removed.

[DaveW]

10 hours ago, robycop3 said:

But now, WHO among men decides which mss. are completely valid & which ones are corrupt, when confronted by a trunk full of ancient Scriptural mss?

Well you decide on a daily basis which bible version is right DEPENDENT UPON YOUR OPINION and the CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONFRONT YOU.

Now, as to your point there - sometimes it is very easy to see which is a corrupt Manuscript - when it is covered in corrections, with barely a single page of the whole mss NOT showing the evidence of corrections; or when even the holders of that mss consider it to be worthy of the rubbish pile...….

These might be good reasons to doubt the accuracy of such mss.

Not just because I like what one says over the other, but because there is actual evidence that it was corrupted and corrected ON THE ACTUAL MSS ITSELF.

Pretty easy decision...….

[robycop3]

14 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well you decide on a daily basis which bible version is right DEPENDENT UPON YOUR OPINION and the CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONFRONT YOU.

Now, as to your point there - sometimes it is very easy to see which is a corrupt Manuscript - when it is covered in corrections, with barely a single page of the whole mss NOT showing the evidence of corrections; or when even the holders of that mss consider it to be worthy of the rubbish pile...….

These might be good reasons to doubt the accuracy of such mss.

Not just because I like what one says over the other, but because there is actual evidence that it was corrupted and corrected ON THE ACTUAL MSS ITSELF.

Pretty easy decision...….

 Well, actually, the corrections might've been to impart accuracy to that ms. No man knows for sure, does he?

As for my decisions about which BVs to use when,  that decision is made from among VALID versions. However, we must have FAITH IN GOD  that He has provided His word as He wants us to have it.

[Jim_Alaska]

If "no man knows for sure" how can a VALID version be identified?

[robycop3]

11 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

If "no man knows for sure" how can a VALID version be identified?

  By its faithfulness to its source(s).

[Jim_Alaska]

And of course you have access to and consult the "source" of each?