|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 8:01:47 GMT -5
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21)
Modern Christians disagree on exactly how this process happened, which leads to disputes on this or that Bible/canon. We're going in circles to argue about the leaves on the tree because we're not looking at the trunk. Let me start this by establishing a baseline of how everyone in this group believes the Bible came about.
Option 1: Only the raw, handwritten diaries of men like David were the direct prophetic words of God. The copies we've made since then are basically a game of telephone. We have it close enough, but not 100%, and therefore we should moderate our reliance on printed copies.
Option 2: Some copies are more accurate than others. We should therefore develop some kind of method to discern the most accurate copy, and there's our solution. It may even come down to personal faith.
Option 3: God worked through a team of prophets, scribes, and historians to give us a manifest canon. Since that cow has left the barn with God's apparent endorsement, it no longer needs to be re-litigated.
Which view do you hold, and how did you arrive at that conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 22, 2018 9:00:32 GMT -5
Option 3 is the closest to how I view it. When it comes to most writings, they are just the words of man. We may write truth as we know it, and it may have value, but it will still contain some biases and possible errors based on our world view. Not so with scripture. I believe that God literally moved upon the authors and they wrote things down word for word as God desired them to. That doesn't mean they were aware of it when it was occurring, but it happened. If it occurred any other way, it would not be inerrant, even in the original copies.
As far as copies go, we had the copies that were in use by those who taught scripture, and we had copies that were made hastily and placed in areas to preserve them. Let's suppose, and this date is completely made up, that in AD 150, someone made copies of the text, and placed them in caves, while they kept the originals. Over time, the originals would wear out, and they would have to be copied word for word again. This would take place over and over, just as an actual Bible that is real old will wear out and have to be replaced by a newer one. The text is the same, but the paper is newer. It is my belief that the text of those in use was preserved fully accurate, and those that were later found in caves that were incomplete copies. It was not the result of a conspiracy so much as they were copied in a hurry.
As for the canon, it is my belief that just as God moved on people to write the original words in the text, he moved on men to create the Biblical canon. The canon is not just the actual books, but the text itself, which is where another controversy comes in. The canon was established and closed. That means that passages like Mark 16:9-20 are settled as part of the Biblical canon. We can't go back later and suggest that the more recent discoveries don't include it, so it may not be canon after all, or you have an open canon. People won't acknowledge that is what they are doing, but it is exactly what they are doing. They did it there, and with many other verses.
I have a copy of the Apocrypha, the books translated by the KJV writers that are not in the canon. They contain something called "Rest of Esther." This is a portion of Esther that was not included in the canon, but could be placed at the end of Esther to create a continuation to that same book. If I was to take Rest of Esther and restore it to Esther, that is to say the canon was wrong, and I am fixing it. Most people would object to that, just as they would object to my taking all the rest of the Apocrypha and placing it in the canon, in their logical order. Why? Because the canon was supposedly settled. If I did do that, and created a new translation or edition of the Bible, I would be doing nothing more than others are doing with the canon by removing part of the text. There is actually one Bible that I saw that added a verse to one of the Psalms they claim was left out that should have been included.
Either God had a hand in the canon, or he did not. If he had nothing to do with the canon, then we can't fully trust in the completeness or accuracy of the Bible. Things could have gotten in that don't belong, and other things could have been left out that should have been included. Talk about confusion! Is our God a God of confusion? Who brings about chaos like that? I would say it is the devil. So either I can trust that God moved on men to write the originals that were in use, not in caves, and that God then moved on men to create a fully trustworthy canon, or I do not. If I do not, why are we even bothering to read the Bible and quote it? Why study it? Why teach from it? I will even go further. Why object to using apocryphal books and making them the equal of the canon, if the canon is not God inspired? You may as well just have everyone going by their own feelings about everything, and what really gets me is how people defend re-opening the canon to remove portions of the text, while attacking apocryphal books and questions over whether they belong. They will claim nothing was left out because those manuscripts don't include those verses, but those verses were in the closed canon, so yes, they are being left out!
Why do I hold to my view? If God went to the trouble of writing a perfect original Bible, and we can believe he did that, why would he then fail to preserve it perfect for future generations in their own languages? Why would a perfect God make us settle for something 95 percent accurate? Why give us something we can't fully rely on? Why cause confusion over Mark 16:9-20? God wouldn't do that. The devil would do something like that. This opens up a can of worms for us to question anything we want in the future. We can have future manuscripts discovered with additions, and start including that in the text. We can have future manuscripts with more books that we can claim were left out. We can re-open the debate over anything and it is fair game. It might be a matter of finding new versions of the book of John that word things in a different way we now think is better than what we had, so we go by that in modern translations. We either trust that our God preserved his Word fully or we do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 9:39:22 GMT -5
Here is the lever being pressed in my mind. Does “prophetic inspiration” cover only writers, or does it also cover the editing and translating process? Is prophecy limited to the raw message?
Paul said interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift. In fact he went so far as to forbid church-wide messages in tongues if there wasn’t an anointed translator. The spirit of a prophet is subject to a prophet. One prophet can’t announce a universal message with no accountability toward someone else to endorse it.
If we extend prophetic leverage to interpreters, translators, etc, then there must necessarily be a word-for-word canon.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 22, 2018 10:21:29 GMT -5
Option 1: Only the raw, handwritten diaries of men like David were the direct prophetic words of God. The copies we've made since then are basically a game of telephone. We have it close enough, but not 100%, and therefore we should moderate our reliance on printed copies. Option 2: Some copies are more accurate than others. We should therefore develop some kind of method to discern the most accurate copy, and there's our solution. It may even come down to personal faith. Option 3: God worked through a team of prophets, scribes, and historians to give us a manifest canon. Since that cow has left the barn with God's apparent endorsement, it no longer needs to be re-litigated. Which view do you hold, and how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Prophetic words are from God's anointed prophets, He spoke through them.
That is why it is God's Word, the written words are from the Spirit of God.
He spoke, then it must be good, perfect and absolutely true which are the exclusive qualities of God.
"Who is like You, O Lord, among the gods?..." - Exodus 15:11
I believe that 100%, letter by letter, word by word accuracy is not needed for the most part of Scriptures.
That is why I believe we should not build doctrines based solely on words and letters.
Obviously, for the parts where 100% accuracy was needed they are 100% accurate because God is able and can do it if it is really necessary.
But much part of scriptures are spiritually discerned. Which means that words can be translated to various forms without losing its spiritual meaning.
Blessings! |
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 22, 2018 13:21:27 GMT -5
Here is the lever being pressed in my mind. Does “prophetic inspiration” cover only writers, or does it also cover the editing and translating process? Is prophecy limited to the raw message? Paul said interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift. In fact he went so far as to forbid church-wide messages in tongues if there wasn’t an anointed translator. The spirit of a prophet is subject to a prophet. One prophet can’t announce a universal message with no accountability toward someone else to endorse it. If we extend prophetic leverage to interpreters, translators, etc, then there must necessarily be a word-for-word canon.
Next comes a belief based only on faith. I believe that God did preserve his Word in the KJV Bible for English speaking people. I believe it is a perfect translation. Obviously, I cannot prove that, and am not trying to prove it. When I say perfect, I mean they used the corresponding word in English that best says the same thing it said in the perfect Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. That is a personal belief. I am not going around preaching divine inspiration on the KJV Bible in the sense of saying God wrote it like he did the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I am saying the translators used the best possible words in English to convey the message, and that it is complete.
What caused me issues with the modern translations of our day was not that they are not the one, God inspired English translation. What caused me to see they are corrupt is that they left out portions of the canon, verses that were already accepted as canon. If it had not been for that, I would never have started down the road searching for the why. Then I learned things like copyright law requirements they must differ, and discovered that the further you go from the first new translation, the more you have to make willful changes just to get the copyright, which means they must be less accurate. There are no two ways around it. I also learned about the NIV, and how they intentionally changed the text to fit a feminist agenda. I have heard people read from the Catholic translation, and it is obvious they worded things to help promote RCC doctrine. Even they have rejected the KJV Bible because they have an agenda. I have seen sermons massaged to agree with the minister's doctrine by using half a dozen translations to do it, worded in a way that makes the Bible appear to say something it doesn't. God is not the author of confusion, and that is what these new versions are causing, chaos and confusion. Those who defend them claim the KJV only people are causing the confusion and strife, when in reality, it is just the opposite. I would also point out that only KJV only people can claim the English Bible we have today is 100 percent accurate, so they fully trust everything it says. Those who defend modern translations must admit they believe that any Bible we have today has errors in it, but they down play it by saying that somehow doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 14:34:31 GMT -5
Argg I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. Let me do some diagramming with a sentence.
NOTE: If this is too tedious for you, feel free not to read it. I'm willing to accept this thread will not be for everyone.
Okay, suppose there's a statement in the Greek manuscripts which the KJV people endorsed as canon. The statement says "Susie hit a blue ball." It's silly, but work with me here. Let's explore all the ways you could faithfully translate it.
Susie hit a blue ball.
A blue ball was hit by Susie.
Susie hit a ball which was blue.
Susie hit a ball -- a blue one.
All of these options correctly convey the statement. I'd accept any of them as a faithful translation. This is what I call word-for-word canon. We are limited to the purest, most direct wording of the statement.
Here are some unfaithful versions:
Susie hit a ball. (You dropped an important word)
Susie whacked a blue ball. (You're editorializing the verb)
Susie hit a bright blue ball. (You're editorializing the color)
Susie hit a blue racquetball. (You're speculating)
Here's where the plot thickens. Maybe the overall scene in the story shows us Susie in a racquetball court, and maybe she's been established as a competitive person. The translator might be fair in his assumption that it was a racquetball, it was bright blue, and she whacked it pretty hard. The translator would likely feel that he is doing the author a favor by making the statement more vivid.
Thus we end up with translations like this:
Susie angrily whacked the bright blue rubber projectile.
Yes, this is how these things happen.
But it's not like the author hadn't thought of that. If the author wanted that sentence to be more juicy, he'd have written it differently. This author chose in that particular sentence to contain the information to "Susie hit a blue ball." That is the sentence we have to work with, whether or not we think the author did a good job on it.
A word-for-word English canon would be every single word carried over into English with no editorializing.
If we accept that the KJV source documents are indeed canon, then any English discussions of them would mirror the KJV pretty closely.
Then we must drill down to whether KJV source documents are in fact the cow that left the barn.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 17:12:33 GMT -5
Let me show you guys an example of how this actually happens to the Bible.
Observe this little doozy from John 13 in The Message Bible:
After he said these things, Jesus became visibly upset, and then he told them why. “One of you is going to betray me.”
Visibly upset? KJV says troubled in spirit. Those are two completely different descriptions, and it matters. The KJV's wording shows us that John prophetically knew what Jesus felt in His spirit. After all, the only way for John to know Jesus's inner feelings is by revelation. The Message assumes that John saw He was upset. By taking it from revelation to body language, The Message removes John's reliance on revelation. From there, it's one small step toward thinking John used no prophetic revelation to write his gospel.
And He told them why? Every other respectable translation says Jesus burst out with a testimony. Did He say those words for their benefit only? Maybe, maybe not. But if you read The Message, no other conclusion is to available to you.
Words have consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 22, 2018 18:15:59 GMT -5
Argg I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. Let me do some diagramming with a sentence. NOTE: If this is too tedious for you, feel free not to read it. I'm willing to accept this thread will not be for everyone.Okay, suppose there's a statement in the Greek manuscripts which the KJV people endorsed as canon. The statement says "Susie hit a blue ball." It's silly, but work with me here. Let's explore all the ways you could faithfully translate it. Susie hit a blue ball. A blue ball was hit by Susie. Susie hit a ball which was blue. Susie hit a ball -- a blue one. All of these options correctly convey the statement. I'd accept any of them as a faithful translation. This is what I call word-for-word canon. We are limited to the purest, most direct wording of the statement. Here are some unfaithful versions: Susie hit a ball. (You dropped an important word) Susie whacked a blue ball. (You're editorializing the verb) Susie hit a bright blue ball. (You're editorializing the color) Susie hit a blue racquetball. (You're speculating) Here's where the plot thickens. Maybe the overall scene in the story shows us Susie in a racquetball court, and maybe she's been established as a competitive person. The translator might be fair in his assumption that it was a racquetball, it was bright blue, and she whacked it pretty hard. The translator would likely feel that he is doing the author a favor by making the statement more vivid. Thus we end up with translations like this: Susie angrily whacked the bright blue rubber projectile. Yes, this is how these things happen. But it's not like the author hadn't thought of that. If the author wanted that sentence to be more juicy, he'd have written it differently. This author chose in that particular sentence to contain the information to "Susie hit a blue ball." That is the sentence we have to work with, whether or not we think the author did a good job on it. A word-for-word English canon would be every single word carried over into English with no editorializing. If we accept that the KJV source documents are indeed canon, then any English discussions of them would mirror the KJV pretty closely. Then we must drill down to whether KJV source documents are in fact the cow that left the barn.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 18:31:31 GMT -5
All excellent points, but with regard to your last sentence, other than the obvious fact that the manuscripts that were available to the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible translators were those accepted as scripture, and the ones used by modern translations were fairly recent discoveries in caves that are incomplete, I don't know how you prove the KJV source documents are "the cow that left the barn." I am going by the obvious, it was accepted as scripture by the church at the time.
This is what I’m meditating on now. |
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 22, 2018 18:50:17 GMT -5
Folks , it is so obvious their is and has been an agenda . HOW easy is to make a claim that some new find contains this or that , then make a big ado
about the KJV not following this or that .
But yet the new versions DO . RIGHT . I aint buying that line .
I could come along and SUPPOSEDLY find anything new , set it up for an agenda and then make it valid and say the KJV was not entirely valid .
BUT LOOK at the supposed TEXTS they are saying were not in the originals,,,,,,,,,,,HOW COME they say ONE IS damned IF he believes NOT IN JESUS
WHY , WHY is this the big ado . I WILL TELL you why , they are SOFTNING the attitudes for more inclusiveness.
I was reading the NIV a long while back . And as I read that mark sixteen footnotes it says this , the EARLIEST manuscripts and some other ancient
witnesses do not have mark sixteen versus nine through twenty .
SO I read nine through twenty and guess what is in it , Part where it says if you bleive not your damned . SO guess what
IN the SPIRIT I said OH NO we don't , and then immediately in the SPIRIT it said GO CHECK JOHN chapter three .
NOTICE this was an unction that came to me . SO I DID
NOW , lets see what it says , SOME interpeters end the quaote after VERSE FIFTEEN .
NOW what gets said AFTER verse fifteen . WHOEVER does not BELEIVE stands condemned . YEAH
YEAH . I had no idea it was going to say that , BUT THE SPIRIT was telling me IT WAS A SHAM , THEY ARE LIARS
that is why it had me go to john three to see those footnotes and SURE ENOUGH when I read that , I FULLY KNEW IT WAS A SHAM.
what is even worse , is in a KING james STUDY bible , I FOUND the same FOOTNOTES , THEY HAVE INFILTRATED everything now .
STICK with the KJV . their are many other changes they have done to the new bibles . and my advice , DONT by buying any KJV STUDY ONES that are newer
THEY put their agenda in the footnotes of even those .
ITS bad folks . NOW , I don't know why on earth we going to trust men , scholars . MEN WHO DIED , DIED , gave up their lives for no agenda , not for money
BUT FOR the sake of the saints to get that true bible into our hands , BUT NOW , TODAY that bible IS UNDER ATTACK .
BY PHONEY MEN . PHONIES , sham artists . NOW STOP buying lies of men .
|
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 22, 2018 19:01:24 GMT -5
Sister Candace , STICK with the original conviction you got the other day . Let us find no way around that .
Lets close other bibles forever . And pick up the KJV and dig in .
I have an niv and I only opened it again just now to quoate those footnotes .
DOES GOD let his own GET LED ASTRAY . NO .
TRUE STORY . years ago wheni was married to jarra, she had an niv bible and we had visited a few churches .
I had not committed to GOD . but I would read her niv and I had no problem with it , or with the kjv I would also read . Also
I could watch tbn and had no problem with it , I could watch rod parsley , olstein , benny hinn and etc
SO , how come years later , WHEN GOD truly drew me out many waters , I picked up the KJV , LOVED IT
YET when I turned on tbn, IT WAS NOW EMPTY and dead to me . BUT NOT the bible .
NOW how come when I tried to pick up other version was I too EMPTY .
YEAH . FIGURE IT OUT . even as a babe, GOD was keeping me safe with DESIRE FOR PURE TRUTH ONLY.
And as I read on and on and grew in wisdom and grace , I began KNOWING THE WHY those other versions as well as tbn or what most preachers were saying
had been so empty . SO it also prompted me to research . AND ALL the years of research I did , ONLY CONFIRMED what the SPIRIT had already let me know .
ITS WHY I do say , PUT the other versions down , PICK up the KJV, turn TBN OFF , and feast on that bible . CUASE deceptions abound everywhere now .
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 22, 2018 19:11:45 GMT -5
Sister Candace , STICK with the original conviction you got the other day . Let us find no way around that . Believe me, brother, I'm becoming more convinced of that conviction all the time. This thread is helping me work through the details. If someone asks me why I started rejecting modern Bibles, I want to be able to give them an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 22, 2018 19:22:00 GMT -5
Argg I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. Let me do some diagramming with a sentence. NOTE: If this is too tedious for you, feel free not to read it. I'm willing to accept this thread will not be for everyone.Okay, suppose there's a statement in the Greek manuscripts which the KJV people endorsed as canon. The statement says "Susie hit a blue ball." It's silly, but work with me here. Let's explore all the ways you could faithfully translate it. Susie hit a blue ball. A blue ball was hit by Susie. Susie hit a ball which was blue. Susie hit a ball -- a blue one. All of these options correctly convey the statement. I'd accept any of them as a faithful translation. This is what I call word-for-word canon. We are limited to the purest, most direct wording of the statement. Here are some unfaithful versions: Susie hit a ball. (You dropped an important word) Susie whacked a blue ball. (You're editorializing the verb) Susie hit a bright blue ball. (You're editorializing the color) Susie hit a blue racquetball. (You're speculating) Here's where the plot thickens. Maybe the overall scene in the story shows us Susie in a racquetball court, and maybe she's been established as a competitive person. The translator might be fair in his assumption that it was a racquetball, it was bright blue, and she whacked it pretty hard. The translator would likely feel that he is doing the author a favor by making the statement more vivid. Thus we end up with translations like this: Susie angrily whacked the bright blue rubber projectile. Yes, this is how these things happen. But it's not like the author hadn't thought of that. If the author wanted that sentence to be more juicy, he'd have written it differently. This author chose in that particular sentence to contain the information to "Susie hit a blue ball." That is the sentence we have to work with, whether or not we think the author did a good job on it. A word-for-word English canon would be every single word carried over into English with no editorializing. If we accept that the KJV source documents are indeed canon, then any English discussions of them would mirror the KJV pretty closely. Then we must drill down to whether KJV source documents are in fact the cow that left the barn. Then we will find the truth that it truly IS the cow that left the barn . he he , frienduff snuck a line in . you loved sister . |
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 22, 2018 19:26:50 GMT -5
Believe me, brother, I'm becoming more convinced of that conviction all the time. This thread is helping me work through the details. If someone asks me why I started rejecting modern Bibles, I want to be able to give them an answer.
The older English it is written in provides more accurate understanding.
In my language, for example, there are by default many different pronouns when referring to one person and more than one person or things.
Modern English is far less accurate, then the older English provides better understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 23, 2018 8:33:36 GMT -5
Believe me, brother, I'm becoming more convinced of that conviction all the time. This thread is helping me work through the details. If someone asks me why I started rejecting modern Bibles, I want to be able to give them an answer.
The older English it is written in provides more accurate understanding.
In my language, for example, there are by default many different pronouns when referring to one person and more than one person or things.
Modern English is far less accurate, then the older English provides better understanding.English evolves faster than probably any other language in the world. It absorbs things from every other language it touches. Unfortunately, this means English words lose or weaken their meaning at a rapid pace. People use words all day that don't mean what they think they mean. |
|
