Hi all:

I used to be KJVO for the last couple of years ... I'm not here to make trouble, just to share with you some thoughts that I've had which has moved me from KJVO to KJVE (KJV-excellent) ...

If I'm not mistaken, God created earthly representations of heavenly/spiritual realities - e.g. carrying the Ark through the desert represents Christ's in the desert, animal sacrifices for Christ's sacrifice, the tabernacle as a model of heaven, etc. I have probably crossed over into some eisegesis below, but if there are clear earthly/spiritual metaphors in Scripture, could not the metaphor possibly be extended to the Scripture itself?

First; We are told in John that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." As I'm sure we would all agree here, Christ Jesus is the Word, and He is God. Jesus Christ is Perfection. God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in a human host, Mary, gave birth to the Living Word, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

In the same manner, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts, as penned by the prophets, apostles, etc. "which the Holy Ghost" (1Cr 2:13) taught, were "given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pe 1:21). God, through the indwelling of His Holy Ghost in human hosts, gave birth to the written Word, the Scriptures in the Original Manuscripts.

Second; The Lord appointed 12 men to be his closest disciples, the apostles. Eleven were faithful witnesses. One, Judas Iscariot, was not.

Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text. This latter Text is also associated with Egypt, which, in my understanding, is a model for the Earth as a whole (as opposed to Israel, a model for Heaven). Is the Majority Text a representation for the faithful majority of the apostles, and the Minority Text for the unfaithful Judas (who may have appeared to be faithful, on the surface)? Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text, and in the process denied recognition of the supernatural in the Written Word. So did Judas when he denied recognition of the supernatural in the Living Word.

Third; Taking a grand view of Christian history, and based on a Dispensational view of the Seven Church Ages in Revelation, the Ephesus age would be the early church/Apostolic age wherein most were faithful. The Smyrnan age was where Christians were being persecuted. The Pergamos Age represents the rise of the Roman Catholic Church where paganism and idolatry were commingled with the truth. Thyatira represents the Dark Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the rise of (conservative & faithful) Evangelical Christianity, and Laodicea the modern age where ecumenism (commingling of falsehood with truth) reigns. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." (2Pet)

Now we see a similar development of Scriptural/Textual transmission throughout history; In the early church era (Ephesus/Smyrnan), the Byzantine/Majority text was generally used throughout the Christian World at the time. With the growth and establishment of the Roman Catholic Church (Pergamos/Thyatira), we see truth mixed with apostasy in the predominant translation at the time: The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome from false books from the Old Latin (e.g. Manasses, etc.), from the Aramaic, Septuagint, and a mix of Byzantine (Majority) and Alexandrian (Minority) text types. During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time, until Westcott and Hort. Thence onwards (Laodicea), we have Bible Societies attempting a form of ecumenism with textual criticism, yet generally upholding the Minority/Alexandrian Text. False prophets, and false teachers, anyone?

What does this all mean to me?

Just as Jesus is the only perfect Living Word of God, it is now my thought that the Original Scriptures are the only perfect Written Word of God. Jesus appointed twelve apostles, of whom one was apostate; in a similar sense, we have direct and faithful copies of the Original Scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text, and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text. The unfaithful apostle, and the unfaithful Text, may appear on some level to be faithful on the surface, but in the details are apostate. The faithful apostles transmitted their faith to their disciples, and to their disciples after that, and so forth, to the modern age. In the same vein, we have copies of the Original and copies of the copies, etc. today. All mankind, even true disciples, are fallible; yet at the same time, in God's grace we are still counted to be among the adopted in Christ. So too are the copies of the Scriptures; each may vary slightly in difference, yet all may be counted to be the Word of God. How are we to distinguish between a true Christian and a false prophet? "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16), and so, the Written Word and copies as well. We witness the bold and faithful men of God in the Sardis and Philadelphian ages overflowing with fruit while they utilized the Majority/Byzantine Text and their translations. Shouldn't we do the same?

Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? If the metaphors and representations I've outlined above holds true, then wouldn't it be like saying "I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos", that is, following one apostle and diminishing the others? Note that at the Council at Jerusalem, we see that a decision was made, not between one apostle and the Holy Spirit, but by the collective agreement and judgment of all of the apostles as they were led by God. Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves? Not if I wouldn't elevate a Gentile human (Pope?) over the Jewish King and God.

What about the fact that the Lord states that "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps 12:7). Well, it's not clear from the verse as to where God will preserve His Word. In Psa 119:89 the Lord says that "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Perhaps, just as the Living Word is settled in heaven right now, His perfect, preserved Original is also in heaven?

I believe that the KJV is a faithful and true translation, by faithful and wise men of God, of a faithful and true representative (Textus Receptus) of the Majority/Byzantine Text, which, itself is a faithful witness to the Original. This is why I will continue to use the KJV as my primary translation. However, I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations, as, it seems to me, that they should also be faithful branches growing from the common Root."we shall be like him" 1 John 3:2

Post Script:
What I have written above is the products of my own thoughts and in prayer with God, and is currently a rough draft. I apologize in advance for any errors; they are wholly mine, and I encourage you to reveal and deconstruct them.

Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Jonathan (jondarien@hotmail.com)

[Brother Tim]

Much to comment on later, but for now:

Jonathan said:

However, I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations, as, it seems to me, that they should also be faithful branches growing from the common Root.

Could you identify those translations, so that we might have a better handle on your discernment?

Secondly, if a translation uses the minority/critical/Alexandrian texts, then do you consider it corrupt, using your metaphor for Judas?

[George]

Third; Taking a grand view of Christian history, and based on a Dispensational view of the Seven Church Ages in Revelation, the Ephesus age would be the early church/Apostolic age wherein most were faithful. The Smyrnan age was where Christians were being persecuted. The Pergamos Age represents the rise of the Roman Catholic Church where paganism and idolatry were commingled with the truth. Thyatira represents the Dark Ages, Sardis the Reformation, Philadelphia the rise of (conservative & faithful) Evangelical Christianity, and Laodicea the modern age where ecumenism (commingling of falsehood with truth) reigns.

Aloha Jonathan,

Instead of answering each and every one of your points, I will just take your "Philadelphia" analogy:

Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Revelation 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

The Philidelphia church is the only church (of the seven) about which the Lord has nothing negative to say. It was known for:

#1. thou hast a little strength
#2. hast kept my word (small "w")
#3. hast not denied my name
#4. thou hast kept the word of my patience (small "w")

Your description of that church is not the Holy Bible's description. Your description is as follows:

#1. conservative (whatever that means)
#2. faithful (we know what that means)
#3. Evangelical (whatever that means)

The main thing that distinguished the Philadelphia church from all of the previous churches was their love of and appreciation of God's words and that the "kept" them (NOT because they were "conservative" or "Evangelical"). And by the way - they couldn't have "kept" His word unless they had it. Even if they didn't have a complete understanding of God's word - they revered it and many of them suffered persecution (or death) because of their love for it. (And by the way - The WORD cannot be separated from His written word! The two are inseparable!)

The Philadelphia church is said to have kept God's word - just exactly what Bible were they using? Although God delivered His words (mostly from Greek & Hebrew manuscripts - but not "tried in the furnace of fire" i.e. not "pure") to the Reformers and they in turn translated those words into their native languages; and although God blessed and honored them and their Translations, the Bible that God blessed the use of throughout the whole world; the Bible that was used to evangelize the world; was not the German, French, Spanish, Dutch, or Scandinavian Bibles.

No other Bible in any other language had been subjected to the "refining" furnace of fire like the English Bible (A.V.). And the fact that from 1611 up until 1881 no other bible met with such universal approval by the entire body of Christ is indicative of God's stamp of "approval" on the Authorized Version (King James Bible).

When the Canon of the Bible was being decided in the 2nd., 3rd, and 4th. centuries A.D., the saints (believers) CHOSE the true Canon and rejected the false. Today we trust them (and God) that the Holy Spirit led them in choosing the correct Books and rejecting the false books. We have no "scientific" way of knowing this - we trust that God led His people in this matter.

Think about that for a minute. God does live within believers - and the vast majority of believers (from 1611 - 1970's) used, approved of, and recognized the A.V. as THE HOLY BIBLE (without question & without doubt). What happened? The "Scribes"; the "Pharisees"; and the "Sadducee's" of the 19th. and 20th. centuries got their dirty grubby fingers on The Holy Bible and have been trying to supplant it with their own ever since the English Revised Version hit the "market".

I would like to know - when "push comes to shove"; when you have to make a decision as to what is true and what is false; which Bible (if any) is your - "FINAL AUTHORITY"?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Similarly, the Original Manuscripts were copied, and most have been identified as belonging in two textual families. First is the Byzantine Text, loosely synonymous with the Majority Text. Second is the Alexandrian Text, itself loosely synonymous with the Minority, or Critical Text.

Greetings Jonathan,

This plays into a paradigmic fantasy of the alexandrian cult. How can 99% of the MSS, largely homogeneous, be equated with 1% of the MS, that are wildly disagreeing within the 1%, as two equivalent 'families' ? That is all part of the charade. The Vulgate and the Old Latin line and the Peshitta line are much more legitimate 'families' than the alexandrian text. Similarly the smallish differences within the Majority Byzantine Text could be family divided, e.g those that have any of these verses.. Acts 8:37, Luke 17:36 Acts 9:5-6 Col. 1:14, 1 John 5:7 could be combined with early church testimony witnesses and made into a 'family' with more legitimacy than the abject alexandrian corruptions.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Wescott and Hort, the "fathers" of the Minority/Critical Text, insisted on treating Scripture like any other ancient (human) text

Except that they custom-tailored their analysis to meet a pre-defined goal, substitution for the 'vile' Textus Receptus. There would be no logical reason for the double Lucian Recension theory in a study of a secular writing, an example where the idea that they followed some secular principles properly is exposed as simply one of the alexandrian cult deceptions. (The Lucian idea was ably disassembled by Dean Burgon, who showed that even, in the highly unlikely and ahistorical idea that it were true, it would defeat their text .) W&H moved the bulls-eye of their target to match the arrows they threw willy-nilly in the air; trying vainly to wound the historic Bible, the TR and the King James Bible.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

During the Reformation (Philadelphia), generally the Byzantine/Majority Texts, and the Textus Receptus (as a representative) were used in most translations during that time,

Actually the Reformation scholars were well aware of the value of the Latin lines. Most especially in omission/addition verses. There is a tendency to downplay their excellence in scholarship and understanding because of a modernist oversimplification that anything associated with the RCC is ipso facto totally false and that God had no hand in any way on the Latin texts. In fact the Latin Vulgate line (not just the Old Latin, although that was superior to the Vulgate) was one vehicle through which many readings in the true Bible were preserved, while the Byzantine faltered on the preservation of some verses for a variety of reasons. This goes hand-in-hand with what Matthew has described as the "scattering and gathering" principle that gave us the Reformation Bible and the totally pure King James Bible.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

we have direct and faithful copies of the Original scriptures in the form of the Majority/Byzantine Text,

Not quite. Two of the most important verses in the Bible (1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37) were largely missing, and a few others were generally out as well. The Greek Byzantine text was a vehicle of preservation, not the vehicle.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

and unfaithful ones in the Minority Text.

Sometimes called the NU-text, but is really the NO-text.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Should I prefer the Textus Receptus over the Byzantine/Majority Text? .

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Continuing the metaphor, should we not consider the collective agreement reading between the Majority/Byzantine text types (including the Textus Receptus)?

Does his collective agreement reading include Acts 8:37 ?
How about the Johannine Comma ?

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves?

An irrelevant & diversionary question, unless you have the "Original" to compare.

Originally Posted by cookiemonste

I will not diminish other faithful Byzantine/Majority Text translations

They are far superior to the alexandrian gang of corrupt modern versions, the thugs of the Version Industry Complex, however the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text attempts simply lead to deficient Bibles, and are of no real import except theoretical, and reflect closely no actual historic MSS or tradition. They simply represent Greek nose-counting, allowing for all sorts of corruptions to enter the text (sometimes I make note of these, however I rarely meet anyone who really 'believes' that the Majority Text is superior).

And many verses of the vibrant and powerful words of God are omitted.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

Just as there were 120 faithful deciples versus 1 Judas and a great body of religiously corrupt Jewish leaders, so we should expect that God is able to faithfully preserve His Word fully and utterly for the "Laodicean Age", despite antichrists, ecumenists, papists, semi-Romanists, etc. Since God did not fail to preserve and build his Church in reality, so likewise God would not fail to preserve His Word in practice. The Greek Textus Receptus in practice is not the Word of God to some family in India. The Greek Textus Receptus in practice is not the Word of God here on this website. The truth is that the King James Bible is the way by which God communicates to people His perfect truth today.

Has God failed to preserve the Church of the Laodiceans? Is it hopelessly corrupt? No, Christ will expel all things which offend. In like manner, the Word of God in the world's language is not lost, despite famine, modernist darkness, etc.

Not all Laodiceans are sinners. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21).

Not all the Laodiceans are rejecting Christ and His true provision, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20).

Not all the Laodiceans are unrepentant and unzealous, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent." (Revelation 3:19).

Not all the Laodiceans are poor and without the knowledge of the true Scripture, "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich" (Revelation 3:18a).

Since Christ has instructed us to be rich, to obtain from Him the blessing, should we find that the true Word of God is absent? Should we find that God has failed to supply His full and utter truth to this generation? Should we find that the real meaning of the Scripture is yet locked in the original languages etc., and even perhaps in some places lost? Being rich means being certain, possessing the very fullness of God, the whole abundant truth.

Where exactly is the Word of God in Greek? Yet, we can say, here is the Word of God exactly gathered from Greek, vindicated through the ages, and set forth here in this langauge by this book which you know.

[bibleprotector]

CM:

Should I elevate and enthrone the KJV above other translations and original language manuscripts and yes, even the Original themselves? Not if I wouldn't elevate a Gentile human (Pope?) over the Jewish King and God.

"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." (Isaiah 44:28).

CM:

Perhaps, just as the Living Word is settled in heaven right now, His perfect, preserved Original is also in heaven?

"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?" (Deut. 30:12).

[Brother Tim]

Now guys, that's what I'm talkin' about! A ONE-TWO punch! Down for the count!

Translations in the majority text line would be the YLT, ALT, etc. I would consider translations in the minority line corrupt, yet at the same time I would not say that a person using them were not Christian. Take God's admonition in Rev 18:4, for example: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." This implies that God's children are present even in a corrupt system.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Much to comment on later, but for now:

Jonathan said:

Could you identify those translations, so that we might have a better handle on your discernment?

Secondly, if a translation uses the minority/critical/Alexandrian texts, then do you consider it corrupt, using your metaphor for Judas?

George:

My goal in describing the seven churches was to generalized their condition concisely. From my (modern-day) perspective, "kept my word" = conservative, "not denied my name" = faithful. Evangelical is just that - the literal meaning - prone to evangelism, which they were. Just because I didn't use the exact words in Scriptures does not mean that I wasn't trying to communicate their meaning - I wouldn't hesitate to use the word "Trinity" even though it is not found in the KJV, for example.

It's my impression that the Philadelphian church used the KJV most often, but there have been exceptions. Off the top of my head for examples: If I remember correctly, Spurgeon was known to have used the KJV and other translations newly made during his time. Andrew Murray read and studied from a Dutch translation with much fruit.

When "push comes to shove" I have and will follow the KJV, as the Holy Ghost guides me: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." With that said, in line with my metaphors, I believe the KJV is like an excellent and faithful Pastor/Under-Shepherd, just as the Original Manuscript is like the Great Shepherd/Jesus Himself.

Originally Posted by George

Instead of answering each and every one of your points, I will just take your "Philadelphia" analogy ... Your description of that church is not the Holy Bible's description. Your description is as follows:
... Philadelphia church [/COLOR]is said to have kept God's word - just exactly what Bible were they using? ... I would like to know - when "push comes to shove"; when you have to make a decision as to what is true and what is false; which Bible (if any) is your - "FINAL AUTHORITY"?
[/SIZE][/FONT]

(I'll have to answer the remaining comments later, I have to get to work right now! )

[bibleprotector]

This is a point in passing while you continue to answer and think about the responses.

I believe the KJV is like an excellent and faithful Pastor/Under-Shepherd, just as the Original Manuscript is like the Great Shepherd/Jesus Himself.

Jesus said, in Matthew 28:20, that he would be with us alway. Therefore, we should have the exact Word of God as was present in the original in one form today.