King James and the Holy Spirit

[Difflugia]

For that reason alone, I believe the King James Bible is the finished work of the Holy Spirit. All these other new renderings of the Bible came out around 1950 or later. Easier to read, "Yes" if you're lazy. The problem is corruption enters the picture.

Leaving aside for the moment whether the modern text-critical editions are valid, do you think that there is a single manuscript of the New Testament (presumably, but not necessarily, the Textus Receptus) that has been accurately preserved by the Holy Spirit?

Do you also think that the English Translation of the KJV is inspired? Is it inerrant?

[onewithhim]

Leaving aside for the moment whether the modern text-critical editions are valid, do you think that there is a single manuscript of the New Testament (presumably, but not necessarily, the Textus Receptus) that has been accurately preserved by the Holy Spirit?

If I can venture a point here without sounding pedantic:

The Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version was based, is not itself a manuscript. I mean that literally: It was a succession of printed, critical Greek texts, initially edited in the 16th Century by Erasmus.

There is no extant manuscript -- an actual hand-written copy of the New Testament -- that matches the Textus Receptus exactly. There are readings in the Textus Receptus that no Greek-speaking person had ever seen prior to the 16th Century.

Given that fact, what are we to make of arguments like this?

First of all, I trust those who copied the original manuscripts over the centuries. I also trust those who inspected every word in the newly copied manuscripts. It was a tedious process: the scribes were not randomly picked to do this work. They were dedicated to their task, and for this reason, their work can be trusted.

This would be a good argument for the Majority Text. But the KJV is not based on the Majority Text, it's based on the Textus Receptus, a critical text that, again, is not identical to any of the extant Greek manuscripts we have.

Do you also think that the English Translation of the KJV is inspired?

Only if we believe the Holy Spirit is an Anglican.

We can go on and on with this conversation. I am well pleased with the things I have learned over the past 40 years. I have 100% confidence in my source material. I have not been indoctrinated by any organization or cult and thank the God for that. I believe Jesus Christ is the Almighty, Revelation 1:8.

Genesis 17:1, When Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect. If no man has ever seen the Father, well then, this has to be Jesus that Abram saw.

Adam and Eve, hid themselves from the presence of the LORD as He was walking in the garden. Again, if no man has ever seen the Father, then who was Adam speaking to when the LORD called him from where he was hiding?

Genesis 35:9, "And God appeared unto Jacob again," Verse 11, And God said to him, I am God Almighty,"

Who do you think wrestled with Jacob? Genesis 32:29, Jacob asked him, tell me, thy name." Jacob wasn't told, but he named the place, "Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Now Jacob was either stupid, or he saw God face to face.

I take the latter as being correct. This is my last word on the subject. If you have been taught that Jesus is a creature created by the Father, that's okay with me, it's wrong, but it's your choice, and I respect it.

All those instances that you mention involve an angel representing Jehovah. It was undoubtedly Jesus, who is God's Word, the one who represents Him in everything. No one can see God face to face, so that requires God to send someone in His place. He sends His Word, His Son. So all those words spoken by "Jehovah" are actually those of someone representing Him. The representation is as good as hearing it from God.

[Difflugia]

If I can venture a point here without sounding pedantic:

If we can have a KJV-only discussion without getting pedantic, I'd be at least a little surprised.

There are readings in the Textus Receptus that no Greek-speaking person had ever seen prior to the 16th Century.

A few Latin-speakers may have, though...

This would be a good argument for the Majority Text. But the KJV is not based on the Majority Text, it's based on the Textus Receptus, a critical text that, again, is not identical to any of the extant Greek manuscripts we have.

And this gets to the real question. Given your position, I'm sure I'm not asking it of you, but if God has preserved some manuscript of the Bible, how has He done so and does that manuscript even exist, yet? Every time a manuscript is copied, it changes, at least until very recent history, so how can we follow the preserved text? Are modern text-critical scholars a part of that path? Even if we were to believe that they are themselves corrupt, is the overall process valid?

This is one of those places where theology and practical reality seem to conflict and I wonder if anyone has a reasonable (or at least interesting) solution.

Only if we believe the Holy Spirit is an Anglican.

[Difflugia]

All those instances that you mention involve an angel representing Jehovah. It was undoubtedly Jesus

I normally don't get the wind up about topics drifting, but you already have dozens of threads in which to wax indignant about Jesus-is-not-Jehovah. This thread is about divine preservation of Biblical manuscripts.

[onewithhim]

All those instances that you mention involve an angel representing Jehovah. It was undoubtedly Jesus

I normally don't get the wind up about topics drifting, but you already have dozens of threads in which to wax indignant about Jesus-is-not-Jehovah. This thread is about divine preservation of Biblical manuscripts.

OK...back to the topic.

[onewithhim]

All translations I know have some words that could have been translated more accurately. But, I think they still can be inspired,

Inspired, but not inerrant? Inspired and inerrant, despite possible improvement?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are all Bible translations divinely inspired, even if they could be better?

some times people just have not managed to go all the way as they should.

I don't know what you mean by this.

In my opinion most accurate English translations are World English Bible, Green's and Young's literal.

The World English Bible is a modern update to the American Standard Version. Is the WEB more accurate than the ASV? Is that because God supernaturally made it so? The ASV is based on Westcott and Hort's critical Greek text. Is this a factor either way in its accuracy?

Green's and Young's are both based on the Textus Receptus. Is that important to their accuracy? Do you think that they're supernaturally accurate, as in God inspired the translators' accuracy?

God inspires but He doesn't dictate. 1213 has a good point that when men get involved in anything, things can be better written.

[Difflugia]

God inspires but He doesn't dictate. 1213 has a good point that when men get involved in anything, things can be better written.

What does that mean to you in terms of modern manuscripts? Was there one initial manuscript of each book (or whatever) written by an original, inspired author that is in some way authoritative or inerrant? Has that been divinely preserved in whole or part or are all manuscripts that exist today the product of human beings without God's intervention?

To put it another way, what is the relationship between your favorite Bible, God, the original human authors, intervening copyists, and modern textual scholars?

[onewithhim]

God inspires but He doesn't dictate. 1213 has a good point that when men get involved in anything, things can be better written.

What does that mean to you in terms of modern manuscripts? Was there one initial manuscript of each book (or whatever) written by an original, inspired author that is in some way authoritative or inerrant? Has that been divinely preserved in whole or part or are all manuscripts that exist today the product of human beings without God's intervention?

To put it another way, what is the relationship between your favorite Bible, God, the original human authors, intervening copyists, and modern textual scholars?

Some modern versions are close to the original languages' meanings. Others mess it up. The NWT is as close to the original languages' meanings as one can get. The American Standard Version is excellent. A more modern ASV---the NASB---is good but has removed the name of God that was in the original text.

[Difflugia]

Some modern versions are close to the original languages' meanings. Others mess it up. The NWT is as close to the original languages' meanings as one can get. The American Standard Version is excellent. A more modern ASV---the NASB---is good but has removed the name of God that was in the original text.

I'm not asking which one is best, but how it got that way.

Is it best because the people that translated it were just good at their jobs or is it best because God was supernaturally involved in specific aspects of the Bible from the pen of the original author to final publication?

[1213]

All translations I know have some words that could have been translated more accurately. But, I think they still can be inspired,

Inspired, but not inerrant? Inspired and inerrant, despite possible improvement?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are all Bible translations divinely inspired, even if they could be better?

some times people just have not managed to go all the way as they should.

I don't know what you mean by this.

I mean, they all can be inspired. And that means, God has given the people the desire and also guidance to translate the texts.

With "not managed to go all the way as they should" I mean: maybe they didn't have patience to avoid certain shortcuts. In some cases it seems people have chosen lazy way to translate, to make it "easier to understand" and then some important details have been lost.

Even if we would think God inspired means God gives them the ideas, it is possible that sometimes people don't just listen everything and miss some points, for example because they think it is not that important.

In my opinion most accurate English translations are World English Bible, Green's and Young's literal.

The World English Bible is a modern update to the American Standard Version. Is the WEB more accurate than the ASV? Is that because God supernaturally made it so? The ASV is based on Westcott and Hort's critical Greek text. Is this a factor either way in its accuracy?

Green's and Young's are both based on the Textus Receptus. Is that important to their accuracy? Do you think that they're supernaturally accurate, as in God inspired the translators' accuracy?

I think one example of what I mean with accuracy is how Gen. 18:1-4 is translated. In this Green's literal version we can notice that it speaks about Jehovah and lord. Some translations, like for example King James has the word lord in both places. And that inaccuracy can mislead people to think wrongly what the text means. The original text has words YHWH and Adonai. So, I think in this case Green's literal is more accurate, because closer to the original words. I think it is also more accurate, because in this way the text is more fitting to the entire Bible, doesn't cause contradictions or other problems.

And Jehovah appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. And he was sitting at the door of the tent in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and looked; and, behold, three men were standing by him. And he saw, and he ran to meet them from the entrance of the tent. And he bowed to the ground. And he said, My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, I beg You, do not leave from near Your servant. Please allow a little water to be taken and You wash Your feet, and rest under the tree.
Gen. 18:1-4 (Green's literal)

In this case WEB and ASV are as good.

In my opinion a good translation uses the actual meanings of the words. And if there are several meanings, then the meaning that is most fitting to the context and all the teachings in the Bible.

Bible tells that Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth. So, the versions that are closer to the truth, are in my opinion likely done in guidance of the Spirit and the writer also has wanted to follow that leading. Maybe all of them have had the Spirit leading, but some of them have not just been as loyal to it as others.

[placebofactor]

Every time a manuscript is copied, it changes,

Where do get that from? The various languages Ethiopian, Sudanese, Russian, etc. may not have certain Hebrew or Greek words or phrases in their language, so new words had to be invented. But the manuscripts from, let's say English to English have not changed. Maybe those who followed after the Arian doctrine may have changed some (intentionally) but the scribes and those who checked the finished work deserve a better memory for their work than you are giving them. I'm not a professional copiest, but I am sure I can, with great care copy something without making a single error. And especially if a second dedicated person checked my work out against the original. I am sure it would be correct. To claim that God cannot keep his word from error is nuts. God never sleeps, and neither does his Holy Spirit.

If the Lord allowed error in his word, then men would not be responsible for sinning. The burden is on the Holy Spirit to keep the word free from error, so free from error, not a dot or dash will ever be changed.