Archaisms in the KJV.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 10:59 AM, 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.

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:18 AM, 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?

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.

Ah, but the details within the Biblical doctrine of preservation help us to establish parameters by which to discern a valid or invalid Scriptural manuscript.

1.  Since the Lord our God gave His PERFECT Word in the original writings thereof, and since the Lord our God promised to preserve that PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY number of variations among Scriptural manuscripts indicates SOME form of corruption therein.  It does not necessarily reveal which "jot and tittle" is originally correct, but it DOES reveal the reality of corruption.

2.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY corruptive variation among Scriptural manuscripts indicates that our adversary the DEVIL has had a hand in the matter, and thus that we should be on careful guard NOT to just accept ALL of these variations, but to be careful in discernment.

3.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant more credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts that have been in available usage from generation to generation through the stewardship of the Israelites during the time of the Old Testament and through the stewardship of our Lord's true church since the time of the church age.  (Note: The Roman Catholic "church" is NOT the Lord's true church.)

4.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant much less credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts or textual families that have been discarded and/or hidden away from God's own people and true church for multiple generations.

Now, such a recognition is NOT an "automatic" dismissal of a Scriptural manuscript, but a careful discernment concerning a Scriptural manuscript that is based upon the DOCTRINAL foundation of Biblical preservation.  On the other hand, any who create a textual philosophy that is NOT founded upon this doctrinal foundation are in error; and any who do not recognize the evil working of the devil to develop and spread corruption within God's perfect Word are in error.

In fact, from this perspective your own declared acceptance of ALL variations and your own neglect to refence and carefully consider the devil's corruptive work reveals your own position of ERROR.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling

[Pastor Scott Markle]

 

42 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

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

29 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  By its faithfulness to its source(s).

Indeed, its faithfulness to its SOURCE would reveal if it is a valid translation of THAT source; but it would NOT reveal if the SOURCE ITSELF is a faithful source.

You see, the question of this matter is NOT whether a given translation is a faithful translation of a given source.  Rather, the question of this matter is whether a given translation is a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD.  In order for that to be the case, at least TWO things must be true:

1.  The translation MUST be a faithful translation of its source.
2.  The SOURCE ITSELF must be a faithful source of GOD"S PRESERVED WORD, without corruption and error.

Even if a translation is a faithful translation of its source, it is still NOT a faithful translation of GOD'S VERY WORD if the source itself was not a faithful source of God's preserved Word, without corruption and error.

[robycop3]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ah, but the details within the Biblical doctrine of preservation help us to establish parameters by which to discern a valid or invalid Scriptural manuscript.

1.  Since the Lord our God gave His PERFECT Word in the original writings thereof, and since the Lord our God promised to preserve that PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY number of variations among Scriptural manuscripts indicates SOME form of corruption therein.  It does not necessarily reveal which "jot and tittle" is originally correct, but it DOES reveal the reality of corruption.

2.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His PERFECT Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, then ANY corruptive variation among Scriptural manuscripts indicates that our adversary the DEVIL has had a hand in the matter, and thus that we should be on careful guard NOT to just accept ALL of these variations, but to be careful in discernment.

3.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant more credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts that have been in available usage from generation to generation through the stewardship of the Israelites during the time of the Old Testament and through the stewardship of our Lord's true church since the time of the church age.  (Note: The Roman Catholic "church" is NOT the Lord's true church.)

4.  Since the Lord our God promised to preserve His perfect Word for each generation of His own people, then we should grant much less credibility toward those Scriptural manuscripts or textual families that have been discarded and/or hidden away from God's own people and true church for multiple generations.

Now, such a recognition is NOT an "automatic" dismissal of a Scriptural manuscript, but a careful discernment concerning a Scriptural manuscript that is based upon the DOCTRINAL foundation of Biblical preservation.  On the other hand, any who create a textual philosophy that is NOT founded upon this doctrinal foundation are in error; and any who do not recognize the evil working of the devil to develop and spread corruption within God's perfect Word are in error.

In fact, from this perspective your own declared acceptance of ALL variations and your own neglect to refence and carefully consider the devil's corruptive work reveals your own position of ERROR.

 Well, actually, NO. I believe God chose to not preserve the Autographa so they wouldn't become icons of worship, as knights of old made of the "Holy Grail" & the presumed artifacts from Jesus' crucifixion that've been presented as such, & venerated by some.  And I believe the only clear original words of God we have are those that agree in almost every known manuscript.

 

  Now I know KJVOs love to hate Sinaiticus & Vaticanus,  but the stories of their "discoveries"  look very much as if the hand of God  prevented their destruction. Sinaiticus was found in a recepticle for fuel, apparently by chance, while at the time Vaticanus was brought to the Vatican, its officials burned every Scriptural document they could find that didn't match what THEY considered the TRUE Scriptures, and Vaticanus certainly didn't match them!  But yet, it was stored away in their library for a long time.

 

  I simply TRUST GOD to have made His word available to me in my language, American English, & I don't try to sort out the ancient Scriptural mss. as I don't know their languages. And I see that , in English, God has kept His word in current language since the time of Wycliffe in 1384 despite the efforts of the Roamin' Calf-Licks to suppress English translations. (Difference is, now, Satan is using Protestants who claim to be Christians to do the same thing!)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Well, actually, NO. I believe God chose to not preserve the Autographa so they wouldn't become icons of worship, as knights of old made of the "Holy Grail" & the presumed artifacts from Jesus' crucifixion that've been presented as such, & venerated by some.  And I believe the only clear original words of God we have are those that agree in almost every known manuscript.

Yet I never indicated that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in an "original autograph" manner, that is -- preserving the original manuscripts themselves down to our time.  Rather, I indicated the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, that is -- preserving the original WORDING of His perfect Word as it was perfectly given, which preservation can certainly be carried through manuscript copies as long as those manuscript copies are perfectly accurate to the original WORDING.
 

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Now I know KJVOs love to hate Sinaiticus & Vaticanus,  but the stories of their "discoveries"  look very much as if the hand of God  prevented their destruction. Sinaiticus was found in a recepticle for fuel, apparently by chance, while at the time Vaticanus was brought to the Vatican, its officials burned every Scriptural document they could find that didn't match what THEY considered the TRUE Scriptures, and Vaticanus certainly didn't match them!  But yet, it was stored away in their library for a long time.

Indeed, I DO reject Sinaiticus & Vaticanus because:

1.  They were NOT passed down to us through the stewardship of God's true church.
2.  They were NOT available to and among God's true church for a multiple number of generations.
3.  They disagree significantly with the textual material that was available and passed down from generation to generation through God's true church.
4.  They disagree with each other in a VERY significant number of places.

As such, I would contend that they do NOT pass the test of acceptability in accord with the Biblical doctrine of preservation.
 

33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 I simply TRUST GOD to have made His word available to me in my language, American English, & I don't try to sort out the ancient Scriptural mss. as I don't know their languages. And I see that , in English, God has kept His word in current language since the time of Wycliffe in 1384 despite the efforts of the Roamin' Calf-Licks to suppress English translations. (Difference is, now, Satan is using Protestants who claim to be Christians to do the same thing!)

Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the same basic textual tradition, whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT textual tradition than those translational works that came before them?  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the textual and translational tradition that had come before?  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us?  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.

Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases.  Such faith is certainly right and good.  However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times.  It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[No Nicolaitans]

36 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Now I know KJVOs love to hate Sinaiticus & Vaticanus,  but the stories of their "discoveries"  look very much as if the hand of God  prevented their destruction. Sinaiticus was found in a recepticle for fuel, apparently by chance, while at the time Vaticanus was brought to the Vatican, its officials burned every Scriptural document they could find that didn't match what THEY considered the TRUE Scriptures, and Vaticanus certainly didn't match them!  But yet, it was stored away in their library for a long time.

Are we not commanded to study his word?

What about this...

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If God expects for us to study his word, and he expects for us to live by EVERY word, then we must have God's word in order to do that...right?

Yet, if Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are his true words, why did God allow them to be kept hidden away from true believers by false religious systems? Why would God expect his children to study and live by his word when they didn't have access to it?

Is that not a pretty big clue that false religious systems had those manuscripts?

[DaveW]

On 3/14/2019 at 11:18 PM, 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?

 

6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 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.

So no one can know which mss are valid but YOU CAN know which Bible versions are valid???????

Double standard much....

You logic - or lack of consistent logic - is unbelievable.

There are plenty of good reasons to reject certain mss, which we haven't even begun to discuss.

You can't run one argument on mss and the exact opposite on Bible versions......

[robycop3]

14 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Are we not commanded to study his word?

What about this...

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

If God expects for us to study his word, and he expects for us to live by EVERY word, then we must have God's word in order to do that...right?

Yet, if Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are his true words, why did God allow them to be kept hidden away from true believers by false religious systems? Why would God expect his children to study and live by his word when they didn't have access to it?

Is that not a pretty big clue that false religious systems had those manuscripts?

 It's also a pretty big clue that they weren't destroyed.

[robycop3]

14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yet I never indicated that the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in an "original autograph" manner, that is -- preserving the original manuscripts themselves down to our time.  Rather, I indicated the Lord our God promised to preserve His Word in a "jot and tittle" manner, that is -- preserving the original WORDING of His perfect Word as it was perfectly given, which preservation can certainly be carried through manuscript copies as long as those manuscript copies are perfectly accurate to the original WORDING.
 

Indeed, I DO reject Sinaiticus & Vaticanus because:

1.  They were NOT passed down to us through the stewardship of God's true church.
2.  They were NOT available to and among God's true church for a multiple number of generations.
3.  They disagree significantly with the textual material that was available and passed down from generation to generation through God's true church.
4.  They disagree with each other in a VERY significant number of places.

As such, I would contend that they do NOT pass the test of acceptability in accord with the Biblical doctrine of preservation.
 

Yes, you see the process whereby the Lord our God maintained His Word in the English language since the time of Wycliffe.  But do you also see that the various translations which existed from the time of Wycliffe until the time of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s all originated from the same basic textual tradition, whereas the line of newer translations that originated with the work of Wescott & Hort and the Revised Standard Version in the late 1800s are founded upon a completely DIFFERENT textual tradition than those translational works that came before them?  Do you see that in their work Wescott & Hort purposefully intended to create something DIFFERENT than that which had come before, and thereby intended to REPLACE the textual and translational tradition that had come before?  As such, do you see that starting with the work of Wescott & Hort in the late 1800s, TWO completely DIFFERENT lines of translational work have progressed before us?  As for myself, I do NOT intend to follow TWO DIFFERENT lines of textual and translational work; but to follow the FIRST line of textual and translational work that the LORD OUR GOD placed in English before His people, and to reject the later attempt to REPLACE that which Lord our God FIRST gave us.  I would contend that what the Lord our God does FIRST in righteousness and edification, the devil seeks AFTER to corrupt with error and deception.

Throughout your various comments and responses in this discussion with me, you continually present faith in the Lord our God to preserve and provide His Word as He so pleases.  Such faith is certainly right and good.  However, throughout these comments and responses, I find a GLARING reality that you appear continually to disregard and neglect, even though I have referenced that reality a number of times.  It is the reality of the devil's work to corrupt God's perfect Word, and thereby to deceive.

  Well, actually, I DO see Satan's work against God's word in creating the false KJVO myth, among other things. And also, he's caused bogus bible versions to be made, such as the cult-specific versions, Clear Word and New World Translation.

 

   And the pattern seems clear that God didn't designate any one ms. nor set of mss. to be THE source of His word, to be used for all translations into current languages., especially for the New Testament.

 

  Speaking of disagreement - the Textus Receptus, the manuscripts from which it was compiled, and the KJV do NOT agree in many places. And, of course, we know the TR has been revised over 30 times, with Dean John Burgon saying it could stand yet another thorough revision.

[robycop3]

12 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

So no one can know which mss are valid but YOU CAN know which Bible versions are valid???????

Double standard much....

You logic - or lack of consistent logic - is unbelievable.

There are plenty of good reasons to reject certain mss, which we haven't even begun to discuss.

You can't run one argument on mss and the exact opposite on Bible versions......

 Hmmmm...So, you'd read from an older English Bible version to a 5-yr. old, or an immigrant still learning English & expect them to understand every word?

 

  Again, a valid Bible translation follows it sources closely. The validity of the sources is another discussion.

[DaveW]

13 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Hmmmm...So, you'd read from an older English Bible version to a 5-yr. old, or an immigrant still learning English & expect them to understand every word?

 

  Again, a valid Bible translation follows it sources closely. The validity of the sources is another discussion.

Hmmmmm..... so you ONCE AGAIN make comment that is in no way relevant to my statements..... you like doing that....

 

But to answer your question anyway.... absolutely I would, did, and still do.

I preach to children from the KJV and explain what needs to be explained and the kids understand.

My own kids could read from the KJV almost as soon as they could read at all.....

And in any case, that has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Calculus is true even though lots of people don't understand it.

[robycop3]

7 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Hmmmmm..... so you ONCE AGAIN make comment that is in no way relevant to my statements..... you like doing that....

 

But to answer your question anyway.... absolutely I would, did, and still do.

I preach to children from the KJV and explain what needs to be explained and the kids understand.

My own kids could read from the KJV almost as soon as they could read at all.....

And in any case, that has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Calculus is true even though lots of people don't understand it.

  it's a lot better to read Scripture  in the audience's everyday language.

[Jerry]

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

 Hmmmm...So, you'd read from an older English Bible version to a 5-yr. old, or an immigrant still learning English & expect them to understand every word?

Actually there are sound TR and Masoretic text-based Bibles in other languages - so the wise believer would encourage the immigrant to get one of those Bibles and perhaps also a King James Bible - so they could learn from both their own language and the language they are now seeking to learn - and could compare passages in both to see how a passage they are learning in their original language comes across in English.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Jerry

[Pastor Scott Markle]

3 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  it's a lot better to read Scripture  in the audience's everyday language.

NO!!!!! It is not!!! Rather, it is better to read Scripture in English that is ACCURATE to the VERY WORD OF GOD as perfectly inspired and preserved by the Lord our God.

[Jerry]

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Well, actually, I DO see Satan's work against God's word in creating the false KJVO myth, among other things. And also, he's caused bogus bible versions to be made, such as the cult-specific versions, Clear Word and New World Translation.

Funny, how you can’t see how a modern version making the exact same changes in many places as the two versions you listed is wrong too. Many cultists - such as JW’s - like some of these modern versions because they can teach their doctrines out of them if their audience won’t read their New World Translation.

I believe Satan is working through the use of the modern versions - by causing people to question the authenticity and final authority of their Bible. Yea, hath God said? Oh, maybe I can be like Robycop and think I am wiser than God and pick and choose my own preferred readings everytime I study from my current multiple choice Bible of the week (or is it day?).

[Rebecca]

I'm not going to get involved in the debate, I just wanted to say a couple of things:

1. I read the KJV as a child, yes I asked questions - but those questions were answered and my vocabulary and understanding of scripture grew.

2. I teach bilingual Bible classes to ESL learners and when reading English scripture we use the KJV. My ESL learners are not only learning the Bible, they are also broadening their vocabulary, so using the KJV isn't a deterrent, it's an asset.