Good post...
.... besides... I spent too many hours as a child memorizing KJV...
nothing else feels right. I can't get my pea brain to memorize those versus
any differently... they are committed to deep. :-)
Andy.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 8:46 PM
Subject: [RR] Re: KJV? Was: Baptism ?
The first irrational mistake on this issue is the mixed logic of tense
( part of speech ) usage. I believe the Original Manuscripters WERE
inerrent infallible etc. also. I believe I have an English Bible that IS
also. Since toe OM are gone they can not be IS. For this reason the KJV
is even better than the original if only because we have it. I know the
last statement is strong and many will object ( without thinking ) to it.
The English PRESERVED in the KJV TEXT is and was the purest form of
English and the Bible translated at the height of the language Godly
scholarship etc. One of the first main points of this discussion is the
matter of God's integrity. He said he would preserve his word forever.
Did He or not? If we go to Psalms 12: 6 and read it in context we will
see a huge difference in what it says between two versions. The KJV
obviously refers to the Preservation of God's WORD, the NIV refers to
preserving His people. That is a tremendous difference. The modern
versions attack, eliminate or obscure the Major Fundamental Doctrines of
the Bible. In fact in some cases, only because you already know the
doctrine are you able to glean it from the text.
There have been over 200 English translations since 1901 ( 1 in 1881 ).
Does the language change that fast, hardly. Today we have a little over
5100 pieces of MS , manuscript, for the NT. They range in size from
partial verses to complete NT Bibles. At the end of Mark in most Bibles,
including most KJ, there is a footnote. It says something to the effect
that:
" the best and most ancient MS omit the last 8 verses of Mark while
others have them with partial omissions". The result of this statement is
the subtle ( or blatant ) hint that these verses should not be in the
Bible.
Now, there are two things to consider about the previous 2 statements:
1800 of the 5100 extant MS agree with the text in Mark. The two that omit
it are the Siniaticus MS and the Vaticanus MZ. They are very old but one
is a copy held in the Vatican and the other was found in a monastery ( in
the wastebasket ) on MT. Sinai. These two documents are the underlying
texts for ALL the modern versions ( except New KJV, another story of
corruption ). I have seen photo copies of these 2 books. One book is a 4
column to a page work and the other a 3 to a page. It is evident from
lokking at them that these verses were physically left out and not added
later ( in other MS ). How can I say this? In both cases the books are
written so that when one book ends the next one starts with less than an
inch of space between. These 2 MS have a space between Mark and Luke that
is about half or more of a column page, just enough room for 8 verses!!!
These two are probably copies that Augistine commissioned in the 4th
century (50 ordered).
The NIV has 64,000 fewer words than the KJV. That is huge especially in
light of the admonition not to add or take away words.
There are 2 types of errors, basically, possible in the texts. 1
typographical and spelling, 2 omission or addition ie copy errors. It is
unworthy to call a mistake of the first type an ERROR as if the words
were wrong or God had made a mistake. Check Ranger net for this type of
error, yet the meaning is clear. For most who say this it is plain
dishonest ( I refer to others not the responder to this missive ).
Consider the state of the art of printing. One of my Bibles has a verse
in Psalms with the last 3 words and the period omitted. And this with
modern computer typsetters. Was this an error? No, just a printing
mistake. If you pronounce mispelled words as they read you will discover
that most of the time you will hear yourself pronouncing a word
phonetically and suddenly you know how to spell it.
Some Kings English words are just spelled different than American
English. Honour, honor Saviour, Savior. The important thing and the thing
that is the biggest problem are terms such as "riddled wirh error but
later editions were better". These lead the reader to believe that
massive changes in the text were made ( just as the statement in Mark
leads the reader to believe those verses are included wrongly ) when this
is not the case. The text ( the words ) have not been changed only
spelling fixed and typo's.
I never said a Catholic, who stays in his church, couldn't be saved. I
just stated the Official Doctrine of his Church. I'm sure there are many
Catholics who don't believe what they are " supposed " to and embrace the
Saviour and He in turn embraces them.
Mike, I appreciate you too.
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:27:12 -0700 Soaring Golden Eagle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Brother Paul, I appreciate most of your comments on RangerNet. It
>seems
>that we may not be exactly on the same page on some things, though.
>
>At 08:49 PM 1/30/99 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Gallina) wrote:
>> We speak English. The King James is the inerrant inspired
>infallible
>>word of God for English speaking people.
>
>I believe that the Holy Bible, as inspired by the Holy Spirit and
>written
>in its original languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Chaldee), is
>inerrant
>and infallible.
>
>I believe that God has throughout history used imperfect vessels to
>record,
>copy, translate, and preserve His Word. Even a donkey can prophesy
>correctly. Prophesying is no guarantee of salvation, either (search
>the
>Scriptures yourself and see). The manuscripts of the Holy Bible that
>we
>have available to us differ in details due to scribal copying
>mistakes.
>This may be unsettling to many, but it is undeniable. Fortunately,
>these
>transcription errors are generally easily corrected by comparing
>different
>manuscripts and considering the context. Scholars today tend to hold
>to one
>of three different views on what the text of the New Testament in its
>original Greek form was. The good news about these three views is that
>they
>are VERY close together, and ALL AGREE on the basis of our salvation
>through Jesus Christ and His shed blood. Indeed, the insignificant
>nature
>of these variations actually serve to confirm the reliability of the
>transcription of Scripture through time, and show much greater
>reliability
>than other works of literature.
>
>The KJV is a generally trustworthy and important translation which
>has
>great historical value, but I believe the translators "missed it" in a
>few
>places. Actually, the original publication of the KJV in 1611 was
>riddled
>with errors and was edited in a manner that would be considered sloppy
>by
>current publishing standards. There was one infamous early edition
>that was
>called "The Adulterer's Bible" by some, because a typo apparently left
>out
>a "not" in the 10 Commandments. Oops. Later editions of the KJV were
>better.
>
>Although there were some who objected to the KJV when it was first
>released
>because it was in contemporary common English of that time (although
>a
>little archaic in some of its language), and because it was new, it
>eventually became widely used, accepted, and trusted.
>
>A lot has happened to the English language in the four centuries since
>work
>began on the KJV. Spellings changed. Rules of grammar changed, not
>only in
>word endings, but in usage and word order. Some words changed so
>drastically in meaning as to mean the opposite of what they started
>out
>meaning. The English of the KJV is definitely not the same dialect as
>any
>living dialect of English used on the Earth today, except for a few
>isolated uses in church and perhaps among some Amish people. English
>is
>only understood by about 10% of the Earth's population. (Mandarin is
>the
>most widely understood language, and there are over 6500 languages
>spoken
>today). Of the people who understand English today, most of them would
>have
>great difficulty understanding KJV English. Thank God for the many
>good
>modern English translations that we have! What concerns me is that
>there
>are so many who have no Bible in their language, yet.
>
>> The Greek Orthodox ( not real
>>familiar with it ) is worthless for us as would a Russian or Latin
>Bible
>>be.
>
>That is why it is so important that we continue supporting those who
>translate the Holy Bible into other languages, so that those who are
>to be
>saved may hear the Gospel in their own language.
>
>> The Catholic Bible is particularly distasteful to
>Evangelicalism as it
>>contains several spurious books ( Tolbit, Bel and the Dragon et. al.
>)
>>from which many of the heresies of Roman Catholicism come.
>
>I used to think that, but the Holy Spirit corrected me.
>
>Actually, the Apocrypha is not the hotbed of heresy you think. Indeed,
>it
>is helpful in understanding the 66 books of the Old and New
>Testaments. I
>would rank the Apocrypha as recommended reading - along side
>contemporary
>Christian books. I may not consider them as inspired in the same way
>as the
>66 books of the Old and New Testaments, but they are worth reading
>and
>preserving. I have even heard some rather respected Evangelical
>pastors
>quote from a part of the Apocrypha on occasion in the process of
>explaining
>some history that helped set the background for whatever they were
>teaching on.
>
>> Plus if you
>>disagree with any of these teachings from Rome you are cursed and on
>the
>>way to Hell. I didn't say that the Pope ( who speaks in the place of
>God
>>) did.
>
>Some died-in-the-wool AG Pentecostals are going to be surprised
>(pleasantly, I hope) when they get to Heaven to find Roman Catholics
>there.
>I'm sure the surprise may be mutual. The Bible never preaches anywhere
>that
>you have to agree with all of a certain set of church doctrines (be
>they
>Roman Catholic catechism or the 17 truths of the Assemblies of God) to
>be
>saved. No, all you have to do is confess with your mouth that Jesus is
>Lord
>and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and you
>will
>be saved. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
>Now, I
>do believe that sound doctrine is important, but your salvation
>doesn't
>rest on mental assent to 100% correct teaching or on your favorite
>Bible
>translation.
>
>I realize that there are a few people who consider the KJV the only
>valid
>English Bible. I encourage them to get the KJV Bible out, read it
>regularly, and heed what it says. As for me and my household, we will
>take
>advantage of the NKJV, NIV, and other great modern translations. I
>also
>read out of my Greek and Hebrew Bibles.
>
>
>___
>
>Michael Paul Johnson aka Soaring Golden Eagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>http://eBible.org/mpj Rocky Mountain Outpost 207 New Creation Church
>Jesus Christ is Lord! If Jesus came back today, would you be READY?
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
_______
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe rangernet" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Eat the hay & spit out the sticks!" RTKB&G4JC!
Autoresponder: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rangernet.org
