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?

[Difflugia]

Every time a manuscript is copied, it changes,

Where do get that from?

It's considered a truism among paleographers that before the printing press, no two manuscripts of the New Testament were exactly identical ("among the 5366 Greek manuscripts that happen to survive, no two are exactly alike in all their particulars"—Bart Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 305). I was assuming that you knew this and would agree with it in at least the technical sense, but perhaps claiming that things like typographical and spelling errors are otherwise unimportant. If you believe that a competent scribe could, as a matter of course, copy a manuscript that is identical to its predecessor, then that explains a great deal of our disagreement.

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.

I suspect that you are far more confident than you should be.

To claim that God cannot keep his word from error is nuts. God never sleeps, and neither does his Holy Spirit.

I have no theological problem with this statement as such, but I'm curious how that looks in practice. If you claim that there is an unbroken chain of perfect manuscripts going back to individual authors, then I don't think you can produce physical evidence of such a chain.

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.

I think that in our technological era, we have neared the point where the burden as you have described it has finally become possible to meet. I don't think that was possible prior to the twentieth century, let alone prior to the printing press.

[placebofactor]

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?

Because of the Divine communication of God’s will to Moses, the prophets, and the people, we read of God’s love and plan for man’s salvation, having been revealed to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. The Scriptures express fully God’s word.

Who was commanded by God to keep and maintain His word? Romans 3:2, “Unto them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God.” The word “oracles” means something uttered or by Divine communication. We can have complete confidence in the Masoretic text of the King James Bible.

The word “Bible” is a Greek word that means book. The O.T. consists of 39 books, and the New Testament consists of 27 books. The body of the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, was written over approximately 1,400 years. From Moses to the end of the first century, the Holy Spirit inspired the whole of Scripture to those who penned or wrote the text.

The text has come down to us in a remarkable state of preservation. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, written as far back as the second and third centuries B.C., bears witness to this fact. The Christian church recognizes and uses this collection of books from Genesis to Revelation as the inspired record of God’s Revelation concerning Himself and His will for us.

Guidelines have been laid down and defined for us. The word speaks of great men, spirit creatures, enemies of God, friends of God, political and religious history, and future prophesy. After the last book was penned, the prophecy was closed. There will be no further announcements coming from God. Those who add or subtract from the Scriptures will answer to God, and the cost will be steep.

The terms Old and New Testament have been used since the end of the second century. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language spoken by the Hebrews in Canaan before the Babylonian Captivity, and a few sections of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic. There are no vowels (A, E, I, O, U) in the Hebrew alphabet, only consonants. The Jewish Masoretic scholars invented vowel signs or points in the sixth century.

Although the Bible has been preserved in its’ original meaning, customs, and traditions, the Hebrew language has undergone many changes. The language has gone from the golden age (Adam to Jacob) through silver (Jews in Egypt), bronze (Babylonian and Medo-Persian captivity), and iron (Greek and Roman conquest,) and like our modern English today, it is a far cry from the original.

Except for a few words and sentences, the New Testament was written in Greek, the people’s language in the time of our Lord Jesus. The Greek of the N.T. is identical to the Greek spoken in the Mediterranean in the first century. The New Testament of the K.J.V. is marked strikingly by the Jewish character and colorful language that existed in the days of our Lord. It holds to the idioms, the peculiar language of a group of people or nation. Other dialects of Greek were Aeolic, Boeotic, Doric, Ionic, and especially the dialect of Attic.

[placebofactor]

Early heresies remain with us today, only in great numbers: Two heretics of history, Wescott - Hort

The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the word of God (2nd Corinthians 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2nd Corinthians 4:2). There would arise false gospels with false epistles (2nd Thessalonians 2:2), along with false prophets and teachers who would not only bring in damnable heresies but would seek to make merchandise of the true believer through their own feigned words (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Paraphrased: “To make suckers of the true believers through their lies.” It did not take long for this to occur. In the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterward, several doctrinal heresies arose. Their early beginnings are referred to in the New Testament.

Galatians 1:6-8; “I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” Also, 1st John 4:3; 2nd John 1:7; and Jude 1:3.

They not only plagued the early Church but are still with us today, in modern form, in many contemporary Christian cults. These false doctrines influenced the transmission of scripture and account for some of the differences in the line of manuscripts.

Following are two such characters. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Tischendorf. This Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year. They also developed a theory of textual criticism that underlay their Greek N.T. and several other Greek N.T. since (such as Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text).

Greek New Testaments such as these, produced the modern English translations of the Bibles on the market today. So, we need to know the theory of Westcott and Hort, because these two men greatly influenced modern textual criticism.

Their theory begins with, “The Bible is to be treated like any other book.”
Westcott and Hort believed the Greek text that underlies the K.J.V. was perverse and corrupt. Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, shouldn't we know something about their beliefs? Were their beliefs consistent with the Scripture? This would be harmonious with the teaching found in Matthew 7:17, "Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit."

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about the Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, page 207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, page 8).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, page 400)

"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, page 212)
Perhaps this is why both the Revised Version (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the American Standard Version, translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV).

Their comments concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but His revelations aimed to lead men to see God in Him."
(Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, page 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., page 16).

"(Revelation 3:15, might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, page 36). Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).

[historia]

If Westcott and Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, shouldn't we know something about their beliefs?

Well, no, this is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy. Wescott and Hort's personal theological views stand completely independent of their textual reconstruction of the New Testament.

We could make this same fallacious argument against the Textus Receptus, too: After all, it was put together by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest. Undoubtedly, you disagree even more with Erasmus on theological matters than you do with Wescott and Hort. So why, then, do you have no problem accepting a Catholic priest's textual reconstruction of the New Testament?

Here's what Westcott and Hort said about the Scriptures:
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, page 207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, page 8).

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, page 400)

. . .

"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but His revelations aimed to lead men to see God in Him."
(Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, page 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., page 16).

"(Revelation 3:15, might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (Hort, Revelation, page 36). Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Jesus a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38, "And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Christ a creature).

Where did you get these quotes from? Because, frankly, it doesn't appear you've read the actual sources you're referencing here, as these quotes are decidedly -- and in several instances deceptively -- taken out of context.