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?

[1213]

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?

All translations I know have some words that could have been translated more accurately. But, I think they still can be inspired, some times people just have not managed to go all the way as they should.

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

[Difflugia]

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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Despite what some believe there is no definitive biblical manuscript. There are THOUSANDS of biblical manuscripts and it is only by taking them all into considération, can we get an accurate picture of the content of the orignal.

Unfortunately for the "King James Only" enthusiasts, the fact is we have discovered many manuscripts and learn a lot about the biblical languages since the middle ages. Archelogical discoveries, modern technologies and discovered texts have allowed modern translators to better understand the biblical texts which means in many ways the modern translation of often more accurate than their predecessors.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

FURTHER READING :

Principles of Bible Translation
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt ... anslation/

WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007409#h=19

Literal bible translations
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... bible.html

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , THE DIVINE NAME and ... BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

* bible interpretation

[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?

Let me begin by thanking you for the question, and by the way you asked it.

Absolutely!

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.

Now, if I thought the Bible was corrupt in one place, I would burn it the next time I rake leaves in my backyard. I have staked my eternity on the one Bible I do trust, without exception, and that's the King James Bible.

The Hebrew text of the Old Testament has come to us uncorrupted. But one thing does need to be considered. That’s the intermingling of languages in the periods the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman dispersed the people of Israel. We see that intermingling of languages in several books, notably, Daniel. But we can be assured the Pentateuch has been passed down to us intact.

The Hellenization of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East area began with Alexander the Great, followed by Seleucid, the family of Antiochus, and the Ptolemy’s of Egypt. Hellenization prepared the Jews and the then-civilized world to receive the New Testament in Greek, and the Hebrew text translated into common Greek (the Septuagint). Now the stage was set for John the Baptist, the Lord, and the coming writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and Paul. Also, for Herod, his temple, the priests of the Temple, Rome, Pilate, the area, and the Jews themselves. Every piece of furniture, every person, and every prop was set in place by the will and the hand of God. That’s my take on your question.

[Difflugia]

The Hebrew text of the Old Testament has come to us uncorrupted.

What convinced you of this?

I'm not looking to hit you with gotchas or anything, but I'm genuinely curious about the progression of this doctrinally for you.

But one thing does need to be considered. That’s the intermingling of languages in the periods the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman dispersed the people of Israel. We see that intermingling of languages in several books, notably, Daniel. But we can be assured the Pentateuch has been passed down to us intact.

What form does this assurance take for you? When there are differences between the Masoretic Text and other witnesses, why are you certain that the Masoretic Text is the faithful copy?

The Hellenization of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East area began with Alexander the Great, followed by Seleucid, the family of Antiochus, and the Ptolemy’s of Egypt. Hellenization prepared the Jews and the then-civilized world to receive the New Testament in Greek, and the Hebrew text translated into common Greek (the Septuagint).

How do you feel about apparent differences between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments that appear to be preserved in New Testament quotations?

Now the stage was set for John the Baptist, the Lord, and the coming writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and Paul. Also, for Herod, his temple, the priests of the Temple, Rome, Pilate, the area, and the Jews themselves. Every piece of furniture, every person, and every prop was set in place by the will and the hand of God. That’s my take on your question.

I'm curious about your apologetic framework for justifying this.

[Difflugia]

Despite what some believe there is no definitive biblical manuscript. There are THOUSANDS of biblical manuscripts and it is only by taking them all into considération, can we get an accurate picture of the content of the orignal.

What form does the Hand of God take in preservation of His Word? Is there a set of principles (Biblical or otherwise) that will lead us to a preserved text? Is the Holy Spirit working through critical scholars?

Or are we in the position of having a text that is statistically as close to the original that we can be, but the content of a perfect original is forever lost?

[historia]

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.

[placebofactor]

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.

[historia]

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.

I think you intended this reply to go to someone else -- perhaps one of our resident Jehovah's Witnesses?