Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Well there it is, like a dead catfish in the sunlight.
Why would you use the Hebrew to pass judgment on our KJV when you don't even understand a word of Hebrew...?

This follows your earlier position where you stated:



Now please don't get offended brother, I sense you may be here for the right reasons. But you have to understand—this kind of thing comes up a lot here, and you have to see the problem with what I just confronted you with. It was not meant to derail you, again I suggest you tread softly here for a while and research the introductory areas before you proceed.

I think you bring up a good point BroParrish and I am not offended at all. I am being honest in stating my position and in stating what I do know and what I don't know. I know a little Greek and not a word of Hebrew, so you are correct in pointing out that my position at least in reagrd to the OT is not one that comes from my own experience, but I was in no way suggesting otherwise.

I am saying that the Hebrew corrects the English, not that I use the Hebrew to correct the English.

At this point it might be wise of me to respectfully ask if you believe that the Greek and Hebrew are the perfect Word of God?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

they had better have perfect copies of the originals, or a sure method of finding out the actual Hebrew and Greek, and what they mean.

Even the translators of the King James Bible talked about the diversity of senses, and laboured to present a correct text rendering (rubbed, polished and perfected), so that they would present the Word of God in English. If it is sound (their word) and exact (their word) in Engish, how can it be altered?

If the originals are always correcting the English, when will the English be correct? The choice is either 1611 onward or never.

Are you suggesting that we don't possess perfect copies of the Hebrew and Greek texts? I would think that for God to have preserved His Word we would have to have perfect examples in Greek and Hebrew. Am I wrong?

When I say that the Hebrew and Greek correct the English, what I am suggesting is that where they differ (Matthew 23:24 for example) the Greek is correct and the English is not. I often use my Textus Receptus to be sure that I am correctly understanding the wording of the AV.

[Brother Tim]

HM responded to Matthew(BibleProtector):

...what I am suggesting is that where they differ (Matthew 23:24 for example) the Greek is correct and the English is not.

Brother Howler, you earlier discredited (and rightly so) modern scholars. Do you not understand that you have just put yourself in that position, only with no formal training with which to establish your opinions?

Who are the ones who have told you that the English is wrong for Matthew 23:24? Is it not the same "scholars" that you have just discredited? Do you consider yourself qualified with your Greek skills to go up against men whose abilities with the original languages were the most superior in the world of their day? The best that you can do, based on your own testimony of your training and skills, is to open up some textbook or reference book, often written by men who do not hold to the perfection of ANY manuscript, and take for granted what that book claims.

Regarding the TR that you use, are you aware that it is not considered even by faithful TR men to be absolutely perfect?

Please do not take my questions as criticism or an attack upon you, Brother. Many have approached the textual issue as you have, trying to reach a middle ground between the wild-eyed KJBO's who will bite the head off anyone who disagrees with them, and the academic egghead who lines his walls with his degrees, and looks down his nose at any who would question his abilities. The simple fact remains that there is no firm middle ground. It is full of potholes.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

Are you suggesting that we don't possess perfect copies of the Hebrew and Greek texts?

I am not merely suggesting, I am saying that this is a fact. All manuscripts differ slightly. All printed Textus Receptus editions differ slightly. The modern texts are revised often. There is no perfect single text of either Testament.

Moreover, scholars to this day differ on what words mean, that is, on how they should be translated.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I would think that for God to have preserved His Word we would have to have perfect examples in Greek and Hebrew. Am I wrong?

God never promised to preserve intact copies that were perfect. There are variations, copying errors and issues (such as missing leaves) in all copies.

The only solution is to critically gather from all sources and witnesses an absolute copy. Attempts to do this by Erasmus and others made great progress. But the final form of such workings has been the King James Bible. It is the final form of the Received Text.

The thing is, you won't find a perfect Hebrew or Greek Testament, but you can find a whole Bible, and the sense is accessible there too, because it is in the global language.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

This is a promise that English would be used.

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Which nations have been converted to Christianity, or obedient by using Hebrew?

When I say that the Hebrew and Greek correct the English, what I am suggesting is that where they differ (Matthew 23:24 for example) the Greek is correct and the English is not.

This is a mistake on your part, for the wording in English is correct, and does give the sense of the Greek. A while ago on this forum, this issue was shown very thoroughly. Just look up "strain" or something to find it.

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I often use my Textus Receptus to be sure that I am correctly understanding the wording of the AV.

1. Which Textus Receptus? Every edition differs and none is perfect in itself.
2. The KJB is in English, how can a past language be giving light on English?
3. The wording of the KJB is sure, because it is God's Word. That does not require another Bible to interpret it.
4. How can you be sure and know the meaning of every last Greek word with certainty anyway? What is the authority of Greek meanings?

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read:

Notice it is a book, not a book with other books, or book requiring a foreign interpreter. Where is the “book” singular in Hebrew? Or in Greek?

You guys are killing me! Too many posts and too much to respond to in the way I would like, but I do thank you for taking the time to talk with me and for being kind as you do. I was a bit worried about the reaction this post would receive, being new here, but my concerns appear to have been without merit (by the way, I reserve the right to revise this opinion if one of you has me for dinner later)

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

HM responded to Matthew(BibleProtector):Brother Howler, you earlier discredited (and rightly so) modern scholars. Do you not understand that you have just put yourself in that position, only with no formal training with which to establish your opinions?

Who are the ones who have told you that the English is wrong for Matthew 23:24? Is it not the same "scholars" that you have just discredited? Do you consider yourself qualified with your Greek skills to go up against men whose abilities with the original languages were the most superior in the world of their day? The best that you can do, based on your own testimony of your training and skills, is to open up some textbook or reference book, often written by men who do not hold to the perfection of ANY manuscript, and take for granted what that book claims.

Regarding the TR that you use, are you aware that it is not considered even by faithful TR men to be absolutely perfect?

Please do not take my questions as criticism or an attack upon you, Brother. Many have approached the textual issue as you have, trying to reach a middle ground between the wild-eyed KJBO's who will bite the head off anyone who disagrees with them, and the academic egghead who lines his walls with his degrees, and looks down his nose at any who would question his abilities. The simple fact remains that there is no firm middle ground. It is full of potholes.

Tim, I am not looking for a middle ground, I am not trying to make both camps happy with what I believe (or even either camp). I am just after the truth. I know that I don't have all the answers, but I never claimed to either.

God has placed all of us in a position where we have to search His Word, use the wisdon He has given us and make up our own mind. In that regard I have to be my own Biblical scholar (and I pray God will guide me) even thought I am trained in other areas. That is all I am trying to do, well that and I enjoy talking about Biblical issues with other Christians.

I am not merely suggesting, I am saying that this is a fact. All manuscripts differ slightly. All printed Textus Receptus editions differ slightly. The modern texts are revised often. There is no perfect single text of either Testament.

BP, thank you for your reply, it is obvious from your posts that you have a passion and depth of knowledge for this issue.

I am afraid I don't understand your position though. How can the AV be perfect if the mss that it was translated from are not perfect?

I have the feeling that I am about to learn something, but at this point you have me totally lost.

[Brother Tim]

HM, your answer is reasonable, however I doubt that any true believers, regardless of their textual position, would say any differently. The problem is that what you claim to believe, that is, that there is a single, easy-to-find, perfect Greek text, cannot be proven. The best that can be claimed by a TRO (who have basically your same belief) is that within the collection of TRs is contained the complete text. Look up "Trinitarian Bible Society" and "Dean Burgon Society" for examples of this.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

HM, your answer is reasonable, however I doubt that any true believers, regardless of their textual position, would say any differently. The problem is that what you claim to believe, that is, that there is a single, easy-to-find, perfect Greek text, cannot be proven. The best that can be claimed by a TRO (who have basically your same belief) is that within the collection of TRs is contained the complete text. Look up "Trinitarian Bible Society" and "Dean Burgon Society" for examples of this.

Tim, I do know about Trinitarian Bible Society, I love to shop on their website and I have also enjoyed many of the articles I have read there. As an asside, I have a passion for well bound Bibles that use high quality materials like goatskin and calfskin, I have even had two Bibles rebound in PQ leathers like Nigerian goatskin. Trinitarian Bible Society puts out some very high quality Bibles at very fair prices.

I have not heard the term TRO, but I do thing that fits me pretty well to be honest. I'll also check out the Dean Burgon site.

Many thanks!

[Jassy]

Originally Posted by HowlerMonkey

I believe that God's written revelation to man was closed in c. AD 95 when John the Apsotle finished his writings, so based on that I see it as only logical that anything which came after that is not inspired by God. It may have God's blessing, as I believe the AV does, but it is not inspired. Because of that I conclude that the Hebrew and Greek are in fact the final authority.

Of course that is not to say that the AV isn't an amazingly accurate translation, clearly God's hand was upon the translators as they worked.

Brother Howler, Your first and last statement here are in direct contradiction. First you say that YOU "believe that God's written revelation to man was CLOSED in c. AD 95.... so based on what I see it is only LOGICAL that anything which came after that is not inspired by God." How can something "have God's blessing" but not be "inspired"? [Emphasis mine.]

Then you say "Of course that is not to say that the AV isn't an amazingly accurate translation, clearly God's hand was upon the translators as they worked."

Well, hmmmmm - how does the Bible DEFINE the Holy Spirit as being involved in something? Isn't that the "hand of God"?

2 Peter 1:21 - For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Notice: "...MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST."

Do you actually doubt God's ability to provide His Holy Spirit to ensure accurate and dependable - INERRANT - translation of the Bible? That is what we have in the AV/KJV. It is a great blessing! And I won't take away from that fact!

Jassy