Are the Earliest Manuscripts the Best?

[KJV1611]

If you've made up in your mind that God is incapable of preserving his word or chose not to preserve his word for all languages, then this video is not for you. However if you're on the fence about this issue then watch this video.

Manuscript discussion starts at about the 60 minute mark.




[video=youtube;ocJVqEOPl_s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocJVqEOPl_s[/video]

 

[Agricola]

Yes GOd has preserved his word due to the prolific copying and translating by countless people over the thousands of years. The King James is not the perfect preserved word.

 

[oldhermit]

Not necessarily. You have to remember that even the earliest MS we have extant are copies, some of the several generation copies.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Yes GOd has preserved his word due to the prolific copying and translating by countless people over the thousands of years. The King James is not the perfect preserved word.

I agree. Not saying that the KJV is a worse english translation, in fact I acknowledge that in some instances it is superior. However no translation is perfect. When it comes to the OT I would prefer to read something translated from the septuagint but not many options as far as that goes.

The thing is, you can read any version of the Bible and still completely misunderstand what is truly being said.
I would advise new Christians to stay away from the more perverted translations, but if you already know about the nature of God, what is sin and things like that then it doesn't matter as much. When I am studying important concepts or doctrine and the wording is very important, I personally check with the greek/hebrew as well as read multiple translations and sometimes multiple commentaries.

My parents always watch Mike, are you him?

 

[KJV1611]

I probably should have chosen a better title. I don't want to debate the issue, I really just want people who are on the fence over the inerrant word issue to listen to some of what Mike has to say.

 

[KJV1611]

I agree. Not saying that the KJV is a worse english translation, in fact I acknowledge that in some instances it is superior. However no translation is perfect. When it comes to the OT I would prefer to read something translated from the septuagint but not many options as far as that goes.

The thing is, you can read any version of the Bible and still completely misunderstand what is truly being said.
I would advise new Christians to stay away from the more perverted translations, but if you already know about the nature of God, what is sin and things like that then it doesn't matter as much. When I am studying important concepts or doctrine and the wording is very important, I personally check with the greek/hebrew as well as read multiple translations and sometimes multiple commentaries.

My parents always watch Mike, are you him?

No I listen to him. I don't agree with him on all issues but he brings up some interesting things about the bible.

 

[Nick01]

What is the knockdown thing that Mike says that you think will convince fence sitters? I see a lot of FUD (e.g he's really going to apply "God will not allow his Holy One to see decay" to the BIBLE @ 1:21:45. Seriously?!), and not a lot of solid reasoning from the MSS tradition. Point out to me what you think is one of the big points.

The argument is ultimately not about whether or not God is capable of preserving his word, if only for the very simple fact that the exact argument people like Mike use in their attack on modern scholarship works exactly in reverse about whether the early church had an uncorrupted version of God's word.

 

[KJV1611]

What is the knockdown thing that Mike says that you think will convince fence sitters? I see a lot of FUD (e.g he's really going to apply "God will not allow his Holy One to see decay" to the BIBLE @ 1:21:45. Seriously?!), and not a lot of solid reasoning from the MSS tradition. Point out to me what you think is one of the big points.

The argument is ultimately not about whether or not God is capable of preserving his word, if only for the very simple fact that the exact argument people like Mike use in their attack on modern scholarship works exactly in reverse about whether the early church had an uncorrupted version of God's word.

There's nothing knockdown in it that I know of. It's just a view of translations from a person that actually believes that God is capable of preserving his word and that he did it.

 

[Agricola]

I probably should have chosen a better title. I don't want to debate the issue, I really just want people who are on the fence over the inerrant word issue to listen to some of what Mike has to say.

So you are pushing to recruit people to your cult, I thought that was against the rules.

 

[KJV1611]

So you are pushing to recruit people to your cult, I thought that was against the rules.

So what makes believing in an inerrant bible a cult?

 

[Agricola]

So what makes believing in an inerrant bible a cult?

Because your cult bases its entire beleif on a couple of cherry picked verses and a revision of English Bible translations is needed to be manipulated to fit these verses. Fact is dozens of languages can also fit in to the refined 7 times.

Your cult would also like to see all other translations and Bibles prior to 1611 and after destroyed. That is the cult, use only our official material and everything else is from Satan.

God never planned to have an inerrant Bible, this leads to many more problems, the Muslims have the Koran, which is an original, but of course how do they know its an original, how do they know that this "original" has not been tampered with?

With the prolific copying and distribution of Gods Word and the Bible accross the thousands of years We can see that the word has been preserved, it is the message that counts. IF God wanted an Original Bible, then we would have it, and further it would have been created in the first century and we would all know about it, not 1500 years later in archaic English.

 

[sparty-g]

I agree. Not saying that the KJV is a worse english translation, in fact I acknowledge that in some instances it is superior. However no translation is perfect. When it comes to the OT I would prefer to read something translated from the septuagint but not many options as far as that goes.

Just curious... why would you prefer to read something translated from the Septuagint? Do you question the preservation of the Masoretic Text or other Hebrew language manuscripts of the OT, and feel the earliest Greek-translated manuscripts of the OT currently in our possession are closer to the intention of the original Hebrew texts? Or is this simply about having variety in the translation versions on your bookshelf for study purposes?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Are the Earliest Manuscripts the Best?

Yes!

Next question, please.

 

[crossnote]

There's nothing knockdown in it that I know of. It's just a view of translations from a person that actually believes that God is capable of preserving his word and that he did it.

God has preserved His Word using multiple mss. If all the eggs were put in one basket (eg Textus Receptus) it would be easy pickins for the higher critics. The colloboration of multiple manuscripts only strengthens the case for inspiration and apparently is the means God used for preservation.

 

[valiant]

If you've made up in your mind that God is incapable of preserving his word or chose not to preserve his word for all languages,

The KJV is not in all languages, indeed it is limited to English. Most of 'all languages' have Scriptures translated from the most modern Greek texts which lay great weight on the earlier manuscripts and papyri. It is significant that when new discoveries are made they tend to support the earlier manuscripts.

The KJV is good, and godly, and has been mightily used. The standard Russian translation of the Scriptures is not as accurate but has also been mightily used. And so we could go on. God is able to use imperfect instruments in carrying out His purposes. He chose not to preserve for us an original.

Personally I find the RV/ASV the most accurate translation for study purposes. They translate the languages more literally.

 

[KJV1611]

Because your cult bases its entire beleif on a couple of cherry picked verses and a revision of English Bible translations is needed to be manipulated to fit these verses. Fact is dozens of languages can also fit in to the refined 7 times.

Your cult would also like to see all other translations and Bibles prior to 1611 and after destroyed. That is the cult, use only our official material and everything else is from Satan.

God never planned to have an inerrant Bible, this leads to many more problems, the Muslims have the Koran, which is an original, but of course how do they know its an original, how do they know that this "original" has not been tampered with?

With the prolific copying and distribution of Gods Word and the Bible accross the thousands of years We can see that the word has been preserved, it is the message that counts. IF God wanted an Original Bible, then we would have it, and further it would have been created in the first century and we would all know about it, not 1500 years later in archaic English.

Great, I'm not a cult member. I base my belief on every verse in the KJV and I really don't care what version other people read. I post stuff for people out there that are like me when I was NIV'er and when I was into the Greek and Hebrew.

We know from the bible that were many corrupt versions of the word of God even during Paul's time, how do we know which of those writings are corrupt and which are not?

Or should that verse actually be in the bible... maybe the KJV is wrong and the NIV's right and people weren't corrupting the word of God in Pauls day. It kind of creates a conundrum when the inerrant word of God doesn't exist, we don't have anything to base truth on. What do you think, is the KJV right on 2 Corinthians 2:17 or is the NIV right? Or maybe both are saying the same thing.

2 Corinthians 2:17Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


2 Corinthians 2:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

 

[KJV1611]

God has preserved His Word using multiple mss. If all the eggs were put in one basket (eg Textus Receptus) it would be easy pickins for the higher critics. The colloboration of multiple manuscripts only strengthens the case for inspiration and apparently is the means God used for preservation.

Is a woman not allowed to teach and usurp authority over a man or is it over just her husband? And how do you know?


1 Timothy 2:12Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV)

12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.
Footnotes:

1. 1 Timothy 2:12 Or over her husband

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

this is actually a 'straw man' argument...no textual scholar actually believes that the earliest manuscripts are always the best...the date of a manuscript is just one of many criteria used to evaluate its credibility...

 

[KJV1611]

The KJV is not in all languages, indeed it is limited to English. Most of 'all languages' have Scriptures translated from the most modern Greek texts which lay great weight on the earlier manuscripts and papyri. It is significant that when new discoveries are made they tend to support the earlier manuscripts.

The KJV is good, and godly, and has been mightily used. The standard Russian translation of the Scriptures is not as accurate but has also been mightily used. And so we could go on. God is able to use imperfect instruments in carrying out His purposes. He chose not to preserve for us an original.

Personally I find the RV/ASV the most accurate translation for study purposes. They translate the languages more literally.

The KJV isn't the only inerrant bible in the world, it's the only inerrant one in English that I know of.

What makes you say the RV/ASV translate the languages more literally? For example, H426 can mean God or god, how do we know if God meant God or a god was in the fiery furnace? which translation is correct?

H426
אלהּ
'ĕlâhh
el-aw'
(Chaldee); corresponding to H433; God: - God, god.


Daniel 3:25Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


Daniel 3:25American Standard Version (ASV)

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

 

[MarcR]

I don't buy Pastor Mike's conspiracy theory. While I am NOT an onlyist, I do believe that Sinaticus and Vaticanus, while older, are inferior to the Textus Receptus, and the Majority text. Both Sinaticus and Vaticanus come from Alexandria, where allegorical interpretation of Scripture was practiced. The Syriac, Coptic, and Byzantine texts (which are the basis for the Textus Receptus, and the Majority Text) come from places where God's Word was taken literally, and treated with respect.

I would rather have a more recent document from people who venerated God's Word than an older document from people who openly corrupted it. The Syriac, Coptic, and Byzantine texts, while from geographically diverse places are in near perfect agreement with each other; while Sinaticus and Vaticanus, both from Alexandria, contradict each other in multiple places.