Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

As I've said to him, my interest in this debate and dealing with @Bible_Highlighter personally is extremely low. I may do what I just did and chime in on specific verses here and there, but I'm not reading everything closely.

If you're not willing to put in the effort, then you're smart enough to sense when there are issues and when zeal is a major factor (as I've seen you address a few times already). And that's why I mentioned AI, especially since he has mentioned it a few times. In a few seconds it can provide the history of this entire issue and the various sides of the debate on the entirety or on specific verses or on the questions you ask.

Honestly, I think if you did some of the homework you'd settle into a sense that the KJ adherents are not a lot different in zeal and some in tactics than the tulipists you're addressing. Just do what you do and stick with the Text and let the Truth be the Truth in every instance no matter who it comes through, Balaam.

Well, I would be interested in seeing you and BH discuss the issue, but in the meantime do you agree with the following?:

Do you agree that the KJV could not be perfect, having been handled by fallible sinners?
Do you think that the KJV seems better than other versions and the best overall, or do you prefer another version?
Do you agree that even if we had the perfect translation, no sinner could claim to have the infallible interpretation?
Do you agree with my continuing to use the KJV, NEB, TEV, NIV, ASB that have served me well for 70+ years?

 

[GWH]

Well take a few days off and I find the modern translation versus KJV battle ongoing. I trust all involved recognize that a KJV from 1800 is different from a KJV from 1900. I would have to review to see just when in the 1800's the KJV changed, but it did.

And also, while there are still Greek and Hebrew words where the proper translation is unclear to modern scholars, the number of these words is far smaller than it was in the 1600's.

As for preserving the proper words, there are three general versions on the OT, the Masoretic shows the fewest connections to the OT quotes found in the NT. Some "prophesies" found in the NT simply do not appear in the Masoretic. And has been noted, the Masoretic lies behind the KJV.

Personally, I use multiple versions, as well as check with the Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as Sinaiticus.

Thanks for your input. As you saw in my posts, I have also used multiple versions, but my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is too limited to be able to read those. Which version do you prefer? Do you find any serious doctrinal differences between the KJV (the version I began with before getting a NEB in 1967) and the 1984 NIV (the version I was given at my ordination) for example?

 

[NightTwister]

Re "Calvinism has actually helped lead some atheists to become even more offended by faith in the fact that they can point to Calvinism's immoral nature.": Yes, tulip teaches that God has an immoral/unjust/unloving nature, which is why it is heretical.

Says the one who preaches an alternate false, heretical gospel without Christ.,

 

[studier]

Well, I would be interested in seeing you and BH discuss the issue, but in the meantime do you agree with the following?:

Do you agree that the KJV could not be perfect, having been handled by fallible sinners?
Do you think that the KJV seems better than other versions and the best overall, or do you prefer another version?
Do you agree that even if we had the perfect translation, no sinner could claim to have the infallible interpretation?
Do you agree with my continuing to use the KJV, NEB, TEV, NIV, ASB that have served me well for 70+ years?

I've already stated my position and practice albeit not directly to you. I look at several Greek manuscripts and several English translations at most all times, and look at textual variants at times when getting into more depth as necessary.

IMO for those who do not know the languages, it's best to look at a few to several English translations these days for a few reasons, including so we realize translation is not a strict science and many interpretive decisions are being made in all translations. It was no different in the 1500-1600's. They used what they had and did what they knew how to do.

Although the NET Bible has been trashed on this thread because Daniel Wallace who is very involved in Greek manuscripts evidence is against this strong KJV advocacy, I'm going to post a link to a NET site where we can read the type of exegetical notes it includes re: translational issues.

 

[studier]

Deut22:28-29:

• Once again, not all "modern translations" agree with the NIV translation, so why not be more specific and case by case rather than generic as if it's KJV against all others?
• Here's a link to a NET Bible site for Deut22 to show some of the type of notes included re: issues with verses like these. Look at verse 28 and note 52 if interested and ask if the NET translation, which I'd assume would be a "modern translation," is more in agreement with the NIV or the KJV.

 

[GWH]

Deut22:28-29:

• Once again, not all "modern translations" agree with the NIV translation, so why not be more specific and case by case rather than generic as if it's KJV against all others?
• Here's a link to a NET Bible site for Deut22 to show some of the type of notes included re: issues with verses like these. Look at verse 28 and note 52 if interested and ask if the NET translation, which I'd assume would be a "modern translation," is more in agreement with the NIV or the KJV.

Well, I think both the KJV and NET imply what the NIV states most strongly/directly/least euphemistically.
So, is the NET your preferred translation?

 

[Blue155]

We know God is not harsh or cruel, so any difficult verse must be interpreted by His character and nature as revealed in His word—and most clearly in Christ.

 

[Blue155]

@studier, your verses you referenced made me look into Deut. 23:1-2. Here is what E. M. Zerr’s commentary says

“Verse 1. At that time the Lord was planning to make his nation a strong one and one that could cope with the enemies around them. Therefore the citizenship ot recorded men must be such as could transmit their kind on down and keep the nation strong as to their man power. Hence a man who bad been deprived of his manhood was not listed..

Verse 2. Bastard. This is from MAMZER and strong deflnes it as an unused root meanIng to alienate; a mongrel, 1. e. born at a Jewish father and a heathen motber." Thus the word does not mean an 'illegitimate’ child as the term is used today. As in the case of the preceding verse, God wants the strain ot the nation's man power to be kept pure. After the tenth generation the heathen blood would have been so run out that the limitation was lifted.”

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

@Bible_Highlighter, the NKJV sometimes has the word “who” while the KJV has the word “which”. See Titus chapter 3 verse 5, Romans chapter 5 verse 5, and Ephesians chapter 1 verse 14.

Which version is correct on that?

1. Historical usage of which for personal antecedents
Linguistic research shows that relative which was indeed used with personal antecedents in Early Modern English and that the strict rule separating who and which came later. In fact, scholars note that which was “freely” used with personal antecedents during that period before later grammarians restricted its use.

Source: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ang-2016-0024/html

2. Older relative pronoun usage was less strict than modern grammar guides
Historical English grammars explain that in Early Modern English the relative pronouns who, which, and that were all circulating and there was not yet a fixed rule that which could only refer to things. That strict distinction was gradually established in the 18th century and later.

Source: https://barrett.lang-learn.org/2010/04/03/3016/

3. The Lord’s Prayer example (commonly noted in grammar history)
A well-known instance of older usage is from historic English texts where people referred to God with which (e.g., “Our Father which art in heaven”), showing that which could still be used for persons in that time.





.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Gal5:12 is a favorite of the KJV advocates and a great example of what some effort with search engines or better, AI, can provide re: the history of the debate which go back to the very early centuries of the church.

It should be understood that this is not a Greek manuscripts issue, rather it is simply a debate about interpretative translation and how it changed in history. The self-castration reading is in part a coming full circle since early church writings also had this interpretation.

Do yourselves a favor and do some homework before buying into the arguments being put forth here.

Misinterpretations from the past don't validate them in the present. The early church fathers, despite their importance, didn't get everything right either.

However, you're missing the broader point that many people overlook. You may attempt to dismiss this single verse (though I haven't seen a convincing argument for why it should be dismissed), but this is about recognizing a consistent pattern of problematic changes, not just one isolated instance.

I've documented 21 verses that weaken the deity of Christ. There are additional changes that dilute teachings on fasting, the blood atonement, and substitutionary atonement. There's even a pattern of alterations that undermine the very characteristics of God's communicated Word. Ironically, modern Bible versions reinforce the very belief system their adherents hold: that only the general message and cardinal doctrines are preserved, not the actual words themselves. They believe all Bibles contain errors, and remarkably, the modern versions they use align perfectly with this low view of Scripture's preservation. For a comprehensive analysis of this pattern, see my free PDF '77 Changed Doctrines' at www.affectionsabove.com.

That's the key issue you're not grasping. But ultimately, people tend to see what they're already predisposed to believe."




,,,,

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

As I've said to him, my interest in this debate and dealing with @Bible_Highlighter personally is extremely low. I may do what I just did and chime in on specific verses here and there, but I'm not reading everything closely.

If you're not willing to put in the effort, then you're smart enough to sense when there are issues and when zeal is a major factor (as I've seen you address a few times already). And that's why I mentioned AI, especially since he has mentioned it a few times. In a few seconds it can provide the history of this entire issue and the various sides of the debate on the entirety or on specific verses or on the questions you ask.

Honestly, I think if you did some of the homework you'd settle into a sense that the KJ adherents are not a lot different in zeal and some in tactics than the tulipists you're addressing. Just do what you do and stick with the Text and let the Truth be the Truth in every instance no matter who it comes through, Balaam.

You say this all without any evidence that the KJV believer is like a Calvinist.
I don't see the two related at all. I actually see the Modern Bible believer like the Calvinist because both of them can never truly answer certain verses. Calvinists have yet to offer any explanation on 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Modern Bible believers do not address the larger multiple patterns of changed doctrines. They try to just pick one verse here and there and they do not even do a good job at refuting even those few.

They both also seem to ignore embarrassing aspects of their history, as well.
Unitarians and deceptions are a part of the origins of the Modern Bible Movement.

There is no verse where Jesus and his disciples talk about textual variants or where He says the Scriptures are filled with errors.
There is no apostle who treated the Scriptures as if it was a Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible.
That is a modern development. Most just do not believe those many verses on the perfection and preservation of Gods Word.
That is really what this is all about. Unbelief. Calvinists just do not believe all the verses that are on free will when it comes to our making a choice towards God. Again, it is unbelief.


.,,,

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

@Bible_Highlighter, the NKJV sometimes has the word “who” while the KJV has the word “which”. See Titus chapter 3 verse 5, Romans chapter 5 verse 5, and Ephesians chapter 1 verse 14.

Which version is correct on that?

The NKJV is really bad. I have a short writeup on it on page 129 (which is also listed in the Table of Contents section).
Also, watch the video in the article, too. Its in the 77 Changed Doctrines PDF at www.affectionsabove.com.



.....

 

[GWH]

You say this all without any evidence that the KJV believer is like a Calvinist.
I don't see the two related at all. I actually see the Modern Bible believer like the Calvinist because both of them can never truly answer certain verses. Calvinists have yet to offer any explanation on 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Modern Bible believers do not address the larger multiple patterns of changed doctrines. They try to just pick one verse here and there and they do not even do a good job at refuting even those few.

They both also seem to ignore embarrassing aspects of their history, as well.
Unitarians and deceptions are a part of the origins of the Modern Bible Movement.

There is no verse where Jesus and his disciples talk about textual variants or where He says the Scriptures are filled with errors.
There is no apostle who treated the Scriptures as if it was a Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible.
That is a modern development. Most just do not believe those many verses on the perfection and preservation of Gods Word.
That is really what this is all about. Unbelief. Calvinists just do not believe all the verses that are on free will when it comes to our making a choice towards God. Again, it is unbelief.
.,,,

Again, you have me convinced that the KJV is better than some MEBs in some cases, but not that it is perfect, so I will keep using my 1984 NIV, because its errors seem venial/didachaic/minor/not perverting the Gospel.

There is no verse where Jesus and his disciples talk about many topics that would have been helpful for heading off modern confusion, such as abortion, pacifism, how Genesis 1 jibes with physical science and why Joshua murdered babies.

Jesus did not say the Scriptures are filled with errors, but He and the NT writers did pick and choose their own Bible passages to show how the OT should be interpreted correctly in light of the revelation of Messiah and the Gospel. IOW, GW should not be identified with extant writings as though every word were dictated like the Ten Commandments, and OT truth should be amended to agree with the NT.

Regarding the Calvinists, do you distinguish between Reformed theology and the TULIP dogma? I agree and amen your saying the tulipists "just do not believe all the verses that are on free will when it comes to our making a choice towards God". This is what I am attempting to show on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture thread. If you have time to post something there, it would be appropriate and appreciated by me.

 

[Blue155]

@GWH, is it true that every verse has only one correct meaning?

 

[studier]

Well, I think both the KJV and NET imply what the NIV states most strongly/directly/least euphemistically.
So, is the NET your preferred translation?

OK, I'll have to assume you haven't read what I've already stated. I have no preferred translation. If anything I'd try to choose one of the more literal ones, so NIV would not be my main choice.

I work from the Greek and have a few manuscripts as well as several English translations on screen at all times and have had for 2-3 decades. If I search in English, I'm most used to the NKJ because we used it in languages classes in seminary for 3 years. Before that I learned mainly from RBThieme who I saw you mention recently and he used the NAS, so I used that for some years.

During and after Greek training the Greek became my Text and as some say, all else is translation.

When teaching I'd take a sampling of what English translations were in the room and I'd try to highlight the many differences and compare the Greek to give anyone interested the appreciation that translation is not an exact science and many interpretational choices from Greek grammar, for one thing, are involved.

Your practice of using a few translations IMO is the better one if one has little or no understanding of Greek, though for some new students they may need some stability before being hit with how divided translation opinions are.

IMO any serious student should end up wondering what the original says and at another level, this ends up in manuscripts evidence and textual criticism. There are tools for identifying textual variants and in our time these tools provide information on manuscripts evidences and how choices have been made.

One of the things the NET notes do is provide some degree of information about manuscripts and translation choices as the link I provided shows.

As I hope you're seeing, this KJV issue is not just about manuscripts, but also about theological choices - is the NIV choice re: Deut22:28-29 "insane" or was it done with some reasoning from the Text? You ended up with an opinion and I doubt you consider yourself insane for doing so. Such is theology and at some point in my process I understood what an internal, let alone externally influenced battleground theology is and wondered what the heck I was doing getting deeper into it.

IMO this KJV debate is another theological distraction and some of its adherents are not much different than advocates and soldiers for various theological systems. Let's just look at each verse and if you want to bring out a manuscript matter in interpreting it, or a systematic approach, or whatever, please feel free to do so, and leave the ad hom and other provocations and fallacious arguments at the doorstep before entering.

 

[studier]

@studier, your verses you referenced made me look into Deut. 23:1-2. Here is what E. M. Zerr’s commentary says

“Verse 1. At that time the Lord was planning to make his nation a strong one and one that could cope with the enemies around them. Therefore the citizenship ot recorded men must be such as could transmit their kind on down and keep the nation strong as to their man power. Hence a man who bad been deprived of his manhood was not listed..

Verse 2. Bastard. This is from MAMZER and strong deflnes it as an unused root meanIng to alienate; a mongrel, 1. e. born at a Jewish father and a heathen motber." Thus the word does not mean an 'illegitimate’ child as the term is used today. As in the case of the preceding verse, God wants the strain ot the nation's man power to be kept pure. After the tenth generation the heathen blood would have been so run out that the limitation was lifted.”

I normally try to stick with the Text as best I can and how it uses words. When it comes to commentaries IMO we're off into another whole level of opinion to add to the mix of interpreting and now we're comparing commentaries to commentaries and scholarly articles to scholarly articles. At quick glance it seems Zerr may be a minority view. At this point I think your original observation about Jesus & His remarks about cutting off provide early insight into hyperbole and rhetoric used in the Text and how human sensibilities can affect translations. For example, awhile ago I read remarks that Song of Solomon is rarely translated literally due to how explicit it is. I've no issue to let the Text say what it says and just deal with it.

 

[studier]

We know God is not harsh or cruel, so any difficult verse must be interpreted by His character and nature as revealed in His word—and most clearly in Christ.

NET Romans 11:22 Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God– harshness toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

I'm a bit more cautious of how I view God.

YLT Matthew 10:28 'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.

 

[Blue155]

NET Romans 11:22 Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God– harshness toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

I'm a bit more cautious of how I view God.

YLT Matthew 10:28 'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna.

When I say harsh, I mean cruel.

 

[Blue155]

I normally try to stick with the Text as best I can and how it uses words. When it comes to commentaries IMO we're off into another whole level of opinion to add to the mix of interpreting and now we're comparing commentaries to commentaries and scholarly articles to scholarly articles. At quick glance it seems Zerr may be a minority view. At this point I think your original observation about Jesus & His remarks about cutting off provide early insight into hyperbole and rhetoric used in the Text and how human sensibilities can affect translations. For example, awhile ago I read remarks that Song of Solomon is rarely translated literally due to how explicit it is. I've no issue to let the Text say what it says and just deal with it.

Understandable.

 

[NightTwister]

Again, you have me convinced that the KJV is better than some MEBs in some cases, but not that it is perfect, so I will keep using my 1984 NIV, because its errors seem venial/didachaic/minor/not perverting the Gospel.

There is no verse where Jesus and his disciples talk about many topics that would have been helpful for heading off modern confusion, such as abortion, pacifism, how Genesis 1 jibes with physical science and why Joshua murdered babies.

Jesus did not say the Scriptures are filled with errors, but He and the NT writers did pick and choose their own Bible passages to show how the OT should be interpreted correctly in light of the revelation of Messiah and the Gospel. IOW, GW should not be identified with extant writings as though every word were dictated like the Ten Commandments, and OT truth should be amended to agree with the NT.

Regarding the Calvinists, do you distinguish between Reformed theology and the TULIP dogma? I agree and amen your saying the tulipists "just do not believe all the verses that are on free will when it comes to our making a choice towards God". This is what I am attempting to show on the Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture thread. If you have time to post something there, it would be appropriate and appreciated by me.

Making it all about you instead of just commenting on this thread, as usual.