The Early and Complete Bible

Discussion in 'Church History' started by The Parson, Jun 22, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Actually, I believe God had his hand on preserving His word in English, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, etc.., through the TR. Not that the translations were inspired, but that the inspired word it's self is in those languages. To repeat,,, "God had His hand on their translation and preservation". Gee, you think He's capable of something like that my friend?
     
  2. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    The better question is, do you think man's more effective at corrupting the text, than God is at preserving it? Do you really think He's restricted Himself to one, artificially defined manuscript tradition?
     
  3. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Hmmmm, so then their learned opinions carry more weight than unlearned men like Paul, of Matthew, or even Jesus?
    Refer to my last post on that one Kierk.
     
  4. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Artificially defined... Oh wow. Spiritually, yes. Artificially, no.
     
  5. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Whoops, sorry about that. Paul had his education. Sorry about that.
     
  6. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    A perfect example of the TR being based on poor manuscripts influenced by church doctrine.

    vs 33: TR says "Joseph"/ Alex says "the father and mother of him"

    But, look at the TR in verse 41: TR uses "parents" to describe Joseph and Mary, not God and Mary
    In verse 48, Marys calls Joseph Jesus' "father,"... she doesn't call him "Joseph, my husband but not the father of Jesus"

    It seems clear that the copyist of the TR wanted to make a doctrine point when none was really necessary, but was then inconsistent in following through with the rest of the chapter.

    The Alex texts are consistent understanding that there was no need, inlight of the entirety of the text, to make a point of Jesus' divine nature.

    So no, the example from Luke 2 does not convince me that a doctrine was changed in the Alex texts, which were earlier. It convinces me tha the Alex text is superior because of the apparent and obvious addition/modification by the TR copyists.
     
  7. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    I think He's capable of saving every single human ever, of alleviating all pain and suffering, yet he has chosen not to do so. What a horrible God, right? Of course not.

    What God may be capable of doing is immaterial. When you get into claiming preservation in translations, now you are entering the world of either double inspiration or that the translations merely "Contain" the word of God, which is not orthodox theology at all.
     
  8. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    So the example of Matthew 1:25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. firstborn son being removed is also a correction of poor copyist work?

    Matthew 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)
     
  9. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Well we know there's only one inspiration for goodness sake, and I never subscribed to the idea that the translated scriptures merely just contain the Word of God, so I guess I don't fit in either category. And what God can do most certainly not immaterial by a long shot.
     
  10. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    Could be. In fact, most likely.

    But again, this doesn't change any doctrine. If "firstborn" was added, it would certainly be an effort by the copyist to point to the perpetual virginity of Mary which infiltrated the church centuries after Alexandria.

    The context of the Gospels is clear that (a) Mary was a virgin when she was betrothed, (b) Mary was a virgin when she conceived, (c) Joseph was not the biological father, (d) that Joseph and Mary did not have sex until after Jesus was born.

    Whether the word "firstborn" is in Matthew 1:25 doesn't change anyone's understanding of the divine nature of Jesus.
     
  11. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    "Not that the translations were inspired, but that the inspired word it's self is in those languages."

    If that's not "contained in", what is it, if the translations are not inspired? Is there a third option?
     
  12. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    That the King James "is" the undefiled Word of God in the English language by virtue of their source which God oversaw. Is that so hard to understand?
     
  13. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    I don't think anyone would describe Paul as 'unlearned', but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is: why are you taking Eusebius' word on Origen, if Eusebius was a first rate heretic?

    It's wholly artificial. If you look at the history of manuscript transmission, no clean lines were kept between Antioch and Alexandria (wasn't Alexandria famous for its library?). Isn't that like complaining there are too many philosophers in Athens, or Americans in America? Here's a question for you: where the majority text and TR agree, are they equally inspired?
     
  14. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    I understand the claim, but it makes absolutely no sense.

    Especially in light of the dozens of admitted errors in the original KJV text and in complete derrogation of the fact that the translators themselves, in the forward, denied an such thing and looked to future translations.
     
    BrianW likes this.
  15. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    What admitted errors RK?
     
  16. RabbiKnife

    RabbiKnife Open the pod bay door, please HAL.

    1. Your statement is that God PRESERVED His word in the KJV. Which one? The only potential argument is that you are referring to the first edition 1611 AV.
    2. PRESERVED means that without any error whatsover of any kind in the translated printed text, or it means nothing.
    3. More than 100,000 changes in wording, spelling, additions, omissions, etc since the first edition 1611. Daniel Wallace has a pretty good article on the issue at https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration. In any event, even one change from the original 1611 KJV destroys the entire argument of "preserved" to mean in translations, much more so in the original texts.

    My favorite is the 1631 version, that says in the Ten Commandments ""Thou shalt commit adultery". God must not have been in preserving mode that day, no?

    Again, of course, that's an absurdity. But it demonstrates perfectly the error of "preserved" to be used as suggested.
     
  17. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    Your article talks about spelling, language modernizing, and word arrangement. He did try to make it look like the KJV is a mess though, didn't he? Hey, I concede. I'm just plain tired ya'll. Discussion complete. Parson out.
     
  18. Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard Life is not a problem to be solved Staff Member

    That printers error is actually an excellent counter point. God's word has been preserved regardless or the error, so why not in all manuscripts?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page