PDA

View Full Version : A nice video on why the King James bible is NOT the inspired word of God



shepherdsword
Jan 9th 2013, 11:56 PM
Textual Criticism: An Introduction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UXXaLtezQNs

Kahtar
Jan 10th 2013, 12:04 AM
Anyone can read the book and decide they don't believe it. A Christian filled with the Spirit of God knows better. Is it perfect? No. Not any of the translations. If they were we certainly would not have a book or a man named 'James', but rather Jacob.
But, it is the best translation we have available, in spite of the old English.

guero
Jan 10th 2013, 02:09 AM
I started to listen then stopped 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video when the speaker said, "You don't have a lot of different kinds of Greek Bibles."

Appendix I of UBS' Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists well over 500 Greek codices spanning several centuries. True, many of these are fragments and not all disagree, but open to any random page of the UBS text and you will see at around a half dozen variant Greek readings in the footnotes based on different sets of codices. Many times the disagreement in how a passage is translated is not so much in how a given Greek word was translated, but rather what the Greek word(s) should be and/or how they should be punctuated (since the oldest originals had no punctuation).

This, in my mind, is a major weakness with the dogma of sola scriptura. Which scriptura? Who decides?

Perhaps I am being uncharitable with the speaker. Please forgive me.

IMINXTC
Jan 10th 2013, 02:45 AM
The autographs are the Inspired word of God. The King James is a translation, as are most bible versions.

While your thread title is correct in that regard, it will read to many like an attempt to invalidate the King James altogether.

Why? I've heard folks say on this board that they despise the King James Version. What's going on?

If you are to suggest, as does this youtube video, that Textual Criticism had invalidated the King James Version, or validates any other version as the genuinely inspired word of God, you'll have a conflict on your hands.

Neither you nor the producers of the video can lay claim to a version which is the genuinely inspired word of God.

Boo
Jan 10th 2013, 08:12 AM
None of the translations are "the inspired word of God." They are all translations of manuscripts that come from the inspired word of God the the letters written by the Apostles and those who walked with Jesus.

Some of those manuscripts were changed, annotated, altered, and torn. Textual criticism attempts to repair the damage done by men over the centuries. There is no need to fight about it. If we believe that God has given us the ability to receive His word, then we believe it. If we attempt to read one and we don't understand it, then we should get one that we do understand. Either God gave us the ability to do that or he didn't.

I'd recommend that each make his choice and live with it. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind. God might.

shepherdsword
Jan 10th 2013, 10:59 AM
I started to listen then stopped 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video when the speaker said, "You don't have a lot of different kinds of Greek Bibles."

Appendix I of UBS' Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists well over 500 Greek codices spanning several centuries. True, many of these are fragments and not all disagree, but open to any random page of the UBS text and you will see at around a half dozen variant Greek readings in the footnotes based on different sets of codices. Many times the disagreement in how a passage is translated is not so much in how a given Greek word was translated, but rather what the Greek word(s) should be and/or how they should be punctuated (since the oldest originals had no punctuation).

This, in my mind, is a major weakness with the dogma of sola scriptura. Which scriptura? Who decides?

Perhaps I am being uncharitable with the speaker. Please forgive me.

You have a point but I think the speaker has the position that the RT is the only uncorrupted manuscript and as such,,,the only true text. While I prefer the RT I do not necessarily totally agree with him. The video is directed at those who somehow think that the King James is inspired and actually overshadows the greek text. If you had looked more deeply this point would have eventually been made.Keep in mind when I post a video or even a link it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything in it. It simply means it supports the precise point I am trying to make...in this case,the inaccuracies and errors replete in the King James translation. I mean I still use the King James but I always consult the greek texts when questioning a difficult passage and I let that override how the KJV translates the word. As for "sola scriptura"? How do we reconcile that position with "As many are lead by the Spirit,they are the sons of God" It would seem that position dismisses walking in the Spirit entirely. Perhaps someone that holds it can correct me if I am wrong.

Boo
Jan 10th 2013, 11:42 AM
I have never seen Sola Scriptura written in the bible.

I think that is a man-made philosophy. That would also seem to say that we are not to ask the Holy Spirit for any teaching. I guess we may as well include any devout men of God who display the fruit of the Spirit - we should ignore them as well.

I guess I just don't buy that whole Sola Scriptura thing. Jesus didn't send scriptures out into the world; He sent disciples. Even though the scriptures were in existence - the original ones - He sent both.

Rullion Green
Jan 10th 2013, 04:39 PM
This, in my mind, is a major weakness with the dogma of sola scriptura. Which scriptura? Who decides?


Sola Scriptura is not related to various translations it is the belief that Scripture alone is the final authority when it comes to theology and the Christian teaching, not the pope or the priest. This 'Dogma' was a polemic to the Roman Catholic teaching that the priest had to interpret the bible for the common man, and actually forbade anyone to read it for themselves. I dont see any weakness in it at all if you take it in its historical context. If the reformers did not hold this 'dogma' you wouldn't be reading scripture for yourselves, you would be in mass getting told what to think. Many people died for this 'dogma' and were burned at the stake simply for having Bibles, De heretico comburendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo). There was a lot of blood spilt so you could have a bible in your hands.....I'm constantly amazed on this forum.

Boo
Jan 10th 2013, 08:02 PM
Sola Scriptura is not related to various translations it is the belief that Scripture alone is the final authority when it comes to theology and the Christian teaching, not the pope or the priest. This 'Dogma' was a polemic to the Roman Catholic teaching that the priest had to interpret the bible for the common man, and actually forbade anyone to read it for themselves. I dont see any weakness in it at all if you take it in its historical context. If the reformers did not hold this 'dogma' you wouldn't be reading scripture for yourselves, you would be in mass getting told what to think. Many people died for this 'dogma' and were burned at the stake simply for having Bibles, De heretico comburendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo). There was a lot of blood spilt so you could have a bible in your hands.....I'm constantly amazed on this forum.

However, it does not have to be an all-or-nothing deal. However, when most people claim "Sola Scriptura," what are they really saying?

I've seen people's attitudes that seem to be "nobody can tell me anything; I have a bible for myself."

Rullion Green
Jan 10th 2013, 09:02 PM
However, it does not have to be an all-or-nothing deal. However, when most people claim "Sola Scriptura," what are they really saying?

I've seen people's attitudes that seem to be "nobody can tell me anything; I have a bible for myself."

To be blunt about it, i dont really care what most people are claiming when they talk about 'sola scriptura' either we take words and phrases (i.e sola scriptura) for what they historically mean or are defined as in the dictionary or we join the culture and go about redefining words and phrases as we see fit. Language then becomes meaningless, and we then start redefining anything we like to suit ourselves.

People who are unteachable due to pride or delusion is another matter.

dan
Jan 10th 2013, 10:01 PM
I started to listen then stopped 1 minute and 30 seconds into the video when the speaker said, "You don't have a lot of different kinds of Greek Bibles."

Appendix I of UBS' Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists well over 500 Greek codices spanning several centuries. True, many of these are fragments and not all disagree, but open to any random page of the UBS text and you will see at around a half dozen variant Greek readings in the footnotes based on different sets of codices. Many times the disagreement in how a passage is translated is not so much in how a given Greek word was translated, but rather what the Greek word(s) should be and/or how they should be punctuated (since the oldest originals had no punctuation).

This, in my mind, is a major weakness with the dogma of sola scriptura. Which scriptura? Who decides?

Perhaps I am being uncharitable with the speaker. Please forgive me.

Once upon a time, God indicated that you should not fear a prophet whose predictions don't come true:

DEUT 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
DEUT 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
DEUT 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I would contend thererfore, that a prophet, or book, that did present a prophecy that comes true would, and should, be given more attention and credence.

The KJV has been closer to recent history than any other version when it comes to the desire of many to eliminate the possession of weapons, IMO.

A man with a healed deadly head wound that was produced by a weapon will blaspheme God...Jesus rebukes him with the declaration that murderers must be killed with a weapon. (Rev 13:9-10)

This has very nearly been fulfilled. No other version has come close.

This, of course, may not be the end of the story, and it may be too soon to declare victory.

So, keep watching.

Let's all fear the Bible version that comes true, whether it's the one that reads the easiest, or not.

shepherdsword
Jan 11th 2013, 12:01 AM
Once upon a time, God indicated that you should not fear a prophet whose predictions don't come true:

DEUT 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
DEUT 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
DEUT 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I would contend thererfore, that a prophet, or book, that did present a prophecy that comes true would, and should, be given more attention and credence.

The KJV has been closer to recent history than any other version when it comes to the desire of many to eliminate the possession of weapons, IMO.

A man with a healed deadly head wound that was produced by a weapon will blaspheme God...Jesus rebukes him with the declaration that murderers must be killed with a weapon. (Rev 13:9-10)

This has very nearly been fulfilled. No other version has come close.

This, of course, may not be the end of the story, and it may be too soon to declare victory.

So, keep watching.

Let's all fear the Bible version that comes true, whether it's the one that reads the easiest, or not.

What in the world are you talking about?

dan
Jan 11th 2013, 12:37 AM
What in the world are you talking about?

Which part is confusing to you?

There is Prophecy in the Bible.

In one version of the Bible the Prophecy is coming true.

The other versions are not fruitful because it is not the same message.

Easy huh?

shepherdsword
Jan 11th 2013, 12:57 AM
Which part is confusing to you?

There is Prophecy in the Bible.

In one version of the Bible the Prophecy is coming true.

The other versions are not fruitful because it is not the same message.

Easy huh?


Can you define precisely which versions of the bible have prophecy that are not coming true? While they are some differences in the greeks texts and the translations the prophecies pretty much read the same with a few minor exceptions.

shepherdsword
Jan 11th 2013, 12:58 AM
Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FOqWv1s0MS0

dan
Jan 11th 2013, 05:26 AM
Can you define precisely which versions of the bible have prophecy that are not coming true? While they are some differences in the greeks texts and the translations the prophecies pretty much read the same with a few minor exceptions.

It appears that the NIV, ESC, and others have the version of Revelation 13:10 that will not be fulfilled.

NIV REV 13:10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go: if anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

ESV REV 13:10 If anyone is to be taken captive,to captivity he goes;if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.

Or in lay terms: "As for captivity or being killed with the sword: whatever will be, will be. Be patient and faithful, all you saints."

On the other hand, KJV, NKJV, Douay, Darby, Websters, NRSV, and others seem to have it right.

NKJV REV 13:10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Again, in lay terms: "He that leads others to hell shall join those he led: he that murders with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is that for which the saints have hope and patience."

The latter appears to have already been partially fulfilled.

So, let me ask you, if one is come to pass, what shall we say about the other?

Boo
Jan 11th 2013, 09:10 AM
Oh oh, we are going to be hit with the KJVO discussion again.

Boo
Jan 11th 2013, 09:11 AM
To be blunt about it, i dont really care what most people are claiming when they talk about 'sola scriptura' either we take words and phrases (i.e sola scriptura) for what they historically mean or are defined as in the dictionary or we join the culture and go about redefining words and phrases as we see fit. Language then becomes meaningless, and we then start redefining anything we like to suit ourselves.

People who are unteachable due to pride or delusion is another matter.

Well, why don't you tell us what they historically mean?

shepherdsword
Jan 11th 2013, 11:12 AM
It appears that the NIV, ESC, and others have the version of Revelation 13:10 that will not be fulfilled.

NIV REV 13:10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go: if anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

ESV REV 13:10 If anyone is to be taken captive,to captivity he goes;if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.

Or in lay terms: "As for captivity or being killed with the sword: whatever will be, will be. Be patient and faithful, all you saints."

On the other hand, KJV, NKJV, Douay, Darby, Websters, NRSV, and others seem to have it right.

NKJV REV 13:10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Again, in lay terms: "He that leads others to hell shall join those he led: he that murders with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is that for which the saints have hope and patience."

The latter appears to have already been partially fulfilled.

So, let me ask you, if one is come to pass, what shall we say about the other?

Hupagei(he is under-leading) can be translated either way and both are true. Jesus warned us that many would be held captive and killed for his name sake and we are also told that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.As for fulfillment...if you are a full or partial preterist then both have already been fulfilled...if you are something like pre-mill post trib then neither have been fulfilled.

rejoice44
Jan 11th 2013, 12:29 PM
Textual Criticism: An Introduction:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UXXaLtezQNs

If the text we have in any version is not the inspired word of God, then how can we call it the word of God? If it's not inspired it is not God's word, or at the least, what makes you think it is God's word?

Rullion Green
Jan 11th 2013, 03:19 PM
Well, why don't you tell us what they historically mean?

I summed it up in post 8 Boo. If your really interested in a detailed perspective, i'll go look for paper on it, but let me know beforehand if you need it please. Your concern about people being individualistic and refusing to be taught by teachers in the body of Christ is a genuine and legitimate concern which i share, but this is a separate issue although some ill informed people may have heard the term and taken it out of context and think they have some historic ground for being stubborn and unwilling to learn from genuine Christian teachers as they think they need nobody. But Sola scriptura is about authority and i think we both agree that in matters of theology, Scripture has the final say if its not taught in scripture either explicitly or can be deduced clearly, we have no business teaching it, for e.g salvation by works is refuted over and over but people still preach it and they have no authority to do so. As scripture is explicit that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. Thats all i'm saying buddy, i re-read my last post and it seemed a bit abrupt, sorry bout that.

Boo
Jan 11th 2013, 05:36 PM
I summed it up in post 8 Boo. If your really interested in a detailed perspective, i'll go look for paper on it, but let me know beforehand if you need it please. Your concern about people being individualistic and refusing to be taught by teachers in the body of Christ is a genuine and legitimate concern which i share, but this is a separate issue although some ill informed people may have heard the term and taken it out of context and think they have some historic ground for being stubborn and unwilling to learn from genuine Christian teachers as they think they need nobody. But Sola scriptura is about authority and i think we both agree that in matters of theology, Scripture has the final say if its not taught in scripture either explicitly or can be deduced clearly, we have no business teaching it, for e.g salvation by works is refuted over and over but people still preach it and they have no authority to do so. As scripture is explicit that we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. Thats all i'm saying buddy, i re-read my last post and it seemed a bit abrupt, sorry bout that.

I will admit that the term Sola Scriptura is misused. People use it to avoid all sorts of teaching and information.

The second problem stems from something else that you mention. Scripture does have the final say, but people don't believe that - not really. Even if scripture clearly says something, if they don't like what scripture actually says - they will choose to instead find something else that they claim is "clearly deduced" elsewhere. (Even when it is not.)

When those occasions arise, we are left with either making our own assumptions or for looking for other proofs. The problem then arises, when proofs are found, that people don't want to use them. How do they deny the additional proofs? Easy - Sola Scriptura. (Then we are back where we started.)

God never told us "Sola Scriptura." He told us that He gave us the Holy Spirit and He gave gifts to men who serve Him. Between the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, we can determine the validity of those whom He sent. God didn't make it easy. We just assume He did and listen to those who only claim to speak for God.

Rullion Green
Jan 11th 2013, 06:01 PM
The second problem stems from something else that you mention. Scripture does have the final say, but people don't believe that - not really. Even if scripture clearly says something, if they don't like what scripture actually says - they will choose to instead find something else that they claim is "clearly deduced" elsewhere. (Even when it is not.)

when it comes to deductions I can say with great confidence that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and is fully God and fully man. This is not explicitly said in scripture but can be deduced from various texts. Even here some will deny these as they are not set out explicitly in scripture but they ARE deduced.



How do they deny the additional proofs? Easy - Sola Scriptura. (Then we are back where we started.)

You are using this term out of context again. This is personal interpretation not sola scriptura please look at a definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura)of the term. You are confusing this with personal interpretation.



God never told us "Sola Scriptura." He told us that He gave us the Holy Spirit and He gave gifts to men who serve Him. Between the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, we can determine the validity of those whom He sent. God didn't make it easy. We just assume He did and listen to those who only claim to speak for God.

Nobody has made the claim God told us "sola scriptura". All i'm saying in terms of sola scriptura is that scripture is authoritative in matters of teaching and doctrine.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16

Boo
Jan 11th 2013, 06:12 PM
when it comes to deductions I can say with great confidence that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and is fully God and fully man. This is not explicitly said in scripture but can be deduced from various texts. Even here some will deny these as they are not set out explicitly in scripture but they ARE deduced.



You are using this term out of context again.



Nobody has made the claim God told us "sola scriptura". All i'm saying in terms of sola scriptura is that scripture is authoritative in matters of teaching and doctrine.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16

My brother, I am aware that I was using Sola Scriptura "out of context." I was giving you the context that I see it used in.

Rullion Green
Jan 11th 2013, 06:16 PM
My brother, I am aware that I was using Sola Scriptura "out of context." I was giving you the context that I see it used in.

My bad ..........

dan
Jan 11th 2013, 07:37 PM
Hupagei(he is under-leading) can be translated either way and both are true. Jesus warned us that many would be held captive and killed for his name sake and we are also told that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.As for fulfillment...if you are a full or partial preterist then both have already been fulfilled...if you are something like pre-mill post trib then neither have been fulfilled.

My apologies to all that have put up with me after they warned me but...

The assumption that this is about that particular CONTEXT appears to be mistaken, IMO.

The one of the beast with the healed deadly head wound blasphemed God.

Jesus is responding to the blasphemy.

If Jesus were to respond with the NIV version of Rev 13:10, He would be agreeing with the beast, or, He would be indifferent about the blasphemy, and I must say, that's not likely at all.