FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
A guy joined my website the other day and asked if he could debate with us about the King James Bible. I told him that I would rather not because none of us are going to change and I doubt he would change either, so there would be no point in it. Anyways, this is a pm he sent me. I'm wondering how you guys would respond to these statements. They sure didn't change what I believe about the King James Bible. How about you guys?
Also, I found the book he refers to, if you guys want to check it out. http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-Reso...Vindicated.pdf Quote:
Last edited by Cody1611; 07-12-2008 at 09:37 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I wouldn't waste my time with trouble makers.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Folks,
Quote:
A simple example is the SDA question (canard) with Benjamin Wilkinson, a good defender. David Cloud (here is one of a couple of pages) http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl070002.htm The Battle for the King James Bible: 1800-1870 and others have shown the historical progressions going back at least into the early 1800's of understanding the authority and perfection of the AV. Benjamin Wilkinson was surely one of dozens of significant contributors towards today's pure understanding, as was Edward Hills, Philip Mauro, Joseph. C. Philpot and many, many others. (In fact neither Hills nor Wilkinson had a clearly fully pure view of the King James Bible, although they both offered tremendous assistance and resources to defenders and filled the historical gap.) Wilkinson was actually eclectic in a sense, since he faced stiff opposition from the SDA General Conference, especially as Ellen White had at times used the corrupt Revision, clearly a difficulty for an SDA pure-KJB understanding. Overall, Wilkinson had good understanding despite his SDA perspective, which would normally be a hindrance. And I believe Benjamin Wilkinson should be given a solid place in the history of King James Bible defenders, where we have ultra-dispensationalists and Pentecostals and this and that. (To be clear and fair, there is a legitimate side-issue as to David Otis Fuller not making clear the Benjamin Wilkinson sources, so in this sense we see today the negative fruit of some unscholarly work by a KJB proponent.) Similarly George McReady Price, SDA, was a major influence for the Creationary movement, preceding Henry Morris and John Whitcomb (in fact his influence in the Creationary movement was far greater than Wilkinson on the Bible issues) yet few would fall so headlong into a genetic fallacy as to reject Creationary views because of McReady's SDA-ness. When you deal with modern versionists, the hardened and calloused no-pure-Bible "any valid version" anti-pure-KJB crew, consistency is not their forté -- it is an unknown jewel. While often you can invite a challenger or a questioner to dialog (and sometimes learn in the process, I have had many on the Messianic forum) in many cases it is simply a time-waster and distraction. If you do invite him on, be very aware of the history and baggage. Shalom, Steven Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-12-2008 at 10:56 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The Doctrine of Scripture Preservation (as presented in Ps. 12:6-7, Ps. 78:1-8, 105:8, 119:89, 119:97-99, 119:111, 119:152, 119:160, Isa. 40:8 & 59:21, Mat. 5:17-18 & 24:35, Jn. 10:35, and I Pet. 1:23-25) ensures for us that actually believe what the Bible says about itself that the scriptures have always been around since they were breathed by God and always will be. Therefore, simple God-given common sense tells us that if God’s pure words have been promised to be preserved forever, there must be a copy of it somewhere TODAY. We believe we have God’s preserved words in the KJV and its underlying texts. History of Bible manuscripts demonstrates for us that the type of text represented in the Traditional Text (or Received Text) family can be traced from the KJV and other faithful TR-based translations in existence today all the way back to the Apostolic age (in the Old Latin and Syrian Peshitto). In other words, there is an unbroken chain of manuscript evidence from the Apostolic age to today supporting the type of text that underlies the KJV. Dr. D.A.Waite demonstrates this evidence on pgs 44-48 of his book Defending the King James Bible under the heading The Thirty-Seven Historical Evidences Supporting the Textus Receptus. This evidence demonstrates the type of text that represents the fulfillment of God’s promises to preserve his pure words forever. Therefore, our whole position on the Textual issue is rooted in the Doctrine of Preservation as found in the word of God. On the other hand, the position that the Westcott & Hort, Alexandrian, Critical Text-only crowd espouses is NOT rooted in the word of God. For they claim that the Critical Text should be the proper basis for Bible translations. The problem with that position, however, is where were the pure words of God between the 4th century and the 19th century if the Critical Text position be true? For even Hort, according to his own writings, recognized that the Traditional Texts were the prominent text of God’s word being used by orthodox Christianity from the 4th to the 19th century. All throughout these ages, orthodox Christianity unanimously rejected the Alexandrian type manuscripts such as Vaticanus. It wasn’t until Tishendorf discovered Sinaiticus in the early 1800s that any significant amount of attention (outside of the Catholic church) was ever directed toward the Alexandrian manuscripts. And it wasn’t really until 1881 that the Critical Text began to develop a following through Westcott and Hort’s Critical Greek NT. You mean to say that for all these centuries orthodox Christianity was without the true and pure words of God? Is it to be believed that Westcott and Hort were the “saviours” that restored for us the true representation of the original words of God? My Bible does not promise for us Bible Restoration, but rather Bible Preservation! The position of the Critical Text crowd is completely contrary to what the Scriptures say about themselves concerning Preservation. So it is not us whose position is unscriptural. It is the pro-Alexandrian, pro-Westcott & Hort, and pro Critical Text crowd whose position is totally unfounded in Scriptural support. (continued) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Besides, I’m not so sure if our opponents really want to compare whose position is more associated with the 7th Day Aventists because if we really wanted to play that “guilt-by-association” game, the truth is that the general position of the 7th Day Adventists today concerning Bible texts is the same as the Critical Text crowd. Benjamin Wilkinson’s position was not the norm amongst his peers. Last edited by Manny Rodriguez; 07-12-2008 at 11:32 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You don’t have to be a linguistic expert to know that sometimes there are exceptions in grammar. In most cases, a masculine plural would not modify a feminine gender. But in the case of Ps. 12:6-7 the masculine plural "them" does in fact modify the feminine noun "words", BECAUSE THE CONTEXT DEMANDS IT! Check it out. First off, let's look at the context. The entire chapter shows a contrast between the evil words of men and the pure words of the Lord. Here are the preceding verses themselves in the context of vs. 6-7: 1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him." (emphasis in bold and underline mine) The hebrew word for "puffeth" is puwach, pronounced poo'akh, which according to Strong's is: a primitive root; to puff, i.e. blow with the breath or air; hence, to fan (as a breeze), to utter, to kindle (a fire), to scoff:--blow (upon), break, puff, bring into a snare, speak, utter. Verse 4 is the key to the context. The context is evil men who persecute with their tongue against the righteous. Now look at the contrast: "6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." This chapter is discussing the contrast of the evil words of men as opposed to the pure words of the Lord. God is showing that the effect of man's evil words are temporal, whereas God's pure words are eternal. If that isn't enough for you, consider the following. Go to any Hebrew expert and ask them if the following point is not true. And when I say a Hebrew expert, I'm not talking about a Gentile professor in a Christian seminary somewhere. Go straight to the source. Go to an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, who knows the language of the Tanakh from his youth, and who's whole life's duty is to know and understand Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures. Who can be more authoritative on the Hebrew language than a Hebrew rabbi himself who has mastered the language from his youth up? My Pastor has the testimony of an orthodox Jewish Rabbi named Rabbi Slater in Savannah, GA who says that sometimes a masculine word can modify a feminine word. To prove this point, he gives the example of Exo. 15:20-21 which says: “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. 21And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.” Notice the words in bold type. We already know the word “them” is masculine. Here’s a really deep question for you. Do you think the word “women” is feminine? The Hebrew word for “women” is “is shah“, a feminine gender according to Strong‘s Hebrew definition. Here you have the case of the masculine plural word “them” modifying the feminine word “women”, BECAUSE THE CONTEXT AND COMMON SENSE DEMANDS FOR IT. There are always exceptions to the rule. (Jack Moorman has an article giving more statements from Hebrew grammar books supporting this same point. Go to http://www.feasite.org/Foundation/fbcpresv.htm.) More examples of masculine words modifying feminine words can be found are found in the following verses: Ps 119:111 ¶ Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Ps 119:129 ¶ Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. Ps 119:152 ¶ Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. Ps 119:167 ¶ My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. There are many other examples that can be found throughout the scriptures but these should be enough to suffice for any reasonable person. In conclusion, Ps. 12:6-7 is indeed a reference to the preservation of God's words, NOT the "poor and needy". Besides, as a Preacher said one time, “I wouldn’t want to be preserved poor and needy forever anyways.” Neither would I. Would you? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
First off, the KJV translators did not come up with the word "Easter". William Tyndale did. In his day, the word Easter was an acceptable translation for the Greek word Pascua and the Hebrew word Pesach. The proof of this is the fact that the word Passover wasn't even in existence in the English language until Tyndale coined it back in the early 1500s. Tyndale invented both these words. Prior to the 1611 KJV, Tyndale’s translation of the English Bible used the words ester or easter, ester-lambe, esterfest, and paschall lambe in the places where we now have the word Passover. Tyndale later revised his English translation and changed these renderings to Passover. But the point here is to show that before the word Passover was introduced to the English language, variations of the word Easter were acceptable. Tyndale only began incorporating his new word Passover when he realized that a distinction needed to be made between the Jewish feast day and the Gentile Pagan observances that fell upon the same time of the year. During the early development of the English language, the word Easter was used in reference to both observances. Secondly, Easter is not only acceptable, it's the proper translation for Acts 12:4. The KJV translators left the passage in Acts 12 as Easter because the Passover feast was already past when Herod intended to kill Peter after a certain observance. That observance couldn't have been the Passover since the Passover was already over with and the scriptures clearly stated that "then were the days of unleavened bread". The Passover took place BEFORE the days of unleavened bread, not during or afterwards. Le 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. v.6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. Those who insist the KJV is in error are quick to point out the fact that there are times in the scriptures when the days of unleavened bread were inclusive under the Passover reference such as in Mark 14:1. They would almost have a point if it wasn’t for the fact that in Acts 12:3 the Holy Spirit made a specific distinction between the two events by laying out the following words as plain as day, "then were the days of unleavened bread". If anything, the fact that the KJV translators recognized the distinction that the Holy Spirit made here only demonstrates the superiority of their scholarship over that of the modern versions. The word Easter is in no way, shape, or form an error in the KJV. It is the proper translation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Folks,
Greetings, Manny. Thanks for the excellent material about early King James Bible defenders, Psalm 12 and more. While your analysis of Psalm 12 is excellent I believe you misunderstand one point about the margin note, which we both agree is not the inspired word of God. Quote:
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=651 Heb.him.i every one of them This footnote is showing the technical Hebrew grammatical form as a singular and it is indicating that it is a collective-type of singular in the Hebrew that translates best into an English plural. Every one of the words of God are preserved from this generation for ever. (This would be the primary understanding.) Manny, your grammar analysis looks fine, my concern is that you are misunderstanding the King James Bible margin note. Please look at another example : Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...gePosition=806 Heb. deathes Here the Hebrew technical grammar form is plural. The proper translation is in the text since in this verse the Hebrew grammar plural form indicates a plural of intensity, not a plural of number. Being aware of Hebrew grammar (eg. Kimchi and Rashi and Nachmanides discuss the nature of this plural) the King James Bible translators are simply showing the reader the grammatical distinction involved. Very similar to Psalm 12:7 and other verses. Such a margin note should not be read as in tension with the text, it is an auxiliary help, designed a bit more for the scholarly or skilled linguist reader than the layman. Quote:
Shalom, Steven |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Cody, this guy sounds very much like a man that I have debated for a long time on another forum. If you want to see just how much time you will waste, just check out our numberless posts. His handle there is 'steelmaker', but he also goes by robycop3 and a few other similar names. I finally tore myself loose for the last time, although he still hasn't stopped his mantra. The link is below for the board. Pick any one of the threads because they always seem to come back to "prove it", "Wilkerson", "KJVO myth", "Easter", "root of all evil" in some combination.
http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/...ich-Bible.html |
|
|