Friday, September 12, 2014

Answers for the Scholarship Only advocate.

Someone who has devoted the time, money, and effort to starting a website on how the KJB (nor any other document) is the inspired word of God preserved for us today. He seems the guy who owns the website seems to think his questions are brilliant so I will answer them thoroughly. (His questions in red)

Note: Ain't it strange that his first three questions do not have anything to do with the KJB?  

1.) Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been)
HOSS: Which Latin Vulgate??? The TRULY VULGAR vulgate (l50 A.D.) or the Catholic Jerome's vulgate??? I have a Latin Vulgate (Jerome's), but I am not fluent in Latin so I really can't say much. However, it does call Joseph the "father" of Jesus in Luke 2:33 (Et erat pater ejus et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo.) so I can safely say that Jerome's Vulgate is not the word of God perfectly preserved. Though just about any version will contain SOME of the inspired words of God, maybe even whole verses.

2.) Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God")

HOSS: Not sure about that....but I do know that the Septuigant is not the inspired word of God and it is corrupt (it has the apocrypa in the Old Testament scriptures!). Meanwhile Jerome's vulgate, Vaticanus, and Siniaticus have the apocrypha in the Old Testament scriptures as well! They're corrupt garbage. (Note: Siniaticus even has apocryphal books in the New Testament scriptures!)

3.) Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

HOSS: As a volume, none of them stood alone as perfect. They had problems with them. But collectively they might possibly have had the preserved words of God in them, though I have not compared them (as a collection) to the KJB.

4.) Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)


Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted?
Any edition, though some contained printers errors.

Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? 
There were thousands of printers errors in the first editions. (just like any Bible or book printed in that time period). The spellings, punctuation, and font have been updated as well over the years.

(And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers?
God is the preserver of scripture (Psalms 12:6-7) and He inspires the creation of original autographs and He also inspires the preservation of the originals. Any preserved scripture is inspired (1 Pet. 1:23-25, Psa. 12:6-7, 2 Tim. 3:15-17, Heb. 4:12-13). Now as for your question, do you honestly think that God inspires printing presses and printing machines? Or do you think that God inspires every printer/copyist that has attempted producing scripture? Of course He hasn't. Preservation is something GOD DOES (Psa. 12:7) and can take care of on His own. He does not need twirps like you asking "why would God...." questions. Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? (Rom 11:34)

Meanwhile you might as well have asked "Why would God inspire words but then allow people to misquote scripture when trying to memorize it?"

Just because God brought forth a perfect compilation of His inspired words in 1611 does not mean that every printer and printing press became "inspired" and without error. Printers did not become infallible.

The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Because I have faith (unlike you). I believe that God said what He meant in Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17. The word of God is preserved for us. I don't sit around worrying if my Bible has a printer mistake in it. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Tim. 1:7)

5.) Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?

HOSS: I like the Cambridge text and the Cambridge mimicks, but I am not a Bible snob. I'll take any KJB. None of them have errors or contradictions. Though certain American publishers have Americanized some words here and there. Such as "throughly" to "thoroughly" and other similar changes.

6.) If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture?

HOSS: Whhhooooaaaa buddy. Those verses on preservation are NOT talking about any particular edition of any text/manuscript in any language at any given time. Those verses (Ps. 12:6-7, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:18, Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, 1 Pet. 1:23-25, and 2 Tim. 3:15-17) are talking about God's words in ANY language in ANY text at ANY given time. "The word of God is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9), preservation does not involve any one language, text, translation, or time period.

7.) When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?

HOSS: What does that mean? There are no contradictions in the Bible. Also, many archaic terms can be defined by comparing scripture with scripture (1 Cor. 2:13, John 6:63). But there is nothing wrong with looking up what a word means if you don't know what the word means. 

But tell me this, if ALL texts, manuscripts, translations, lexicons, etc. ARE fallible and NOT perfectly preserved (as you say).....why do you bother with them? Why do you study fallible manuscripts?

8.) Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

HOSS: There was not a KJB prior to 1611, so there would be nothing for me to contradict. I was not around then so I really cannot tell you anything about those bibles and translations.


HOSS: And that is what your questions are, a whole lot of  #2. 
9.) The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.

HOSS: Classic. You want me to identify a perfect and complete volume of the inspired words of God prior to 1611. You want me to name something that is not identical to the KJB so that I will have differing authorities. However, your question is not that realistic, "Where was a complete, perfect, without error, inspired preservation of God's words in one volume FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE YEARS AGO". I think the better question is "WHERE IS THE WORD OF GOD RIGHT NOW". 

But here is my post on the topic "where was the word of God before 1611". (in green)


"         THE HOLY BIBLE
containing the old and new testaments
1611 Authorized King James Version
Translated out of the original tongues 
and with former translations
diligently compared and revised
by his magesty's special command         "

The word of God (prior to 1611) was in the former translations and the Hebrew and Greek languages. The KJB is a compilation of the correct (inspired) readings from those sources. The TR, Majority Text, Alexandrian Text, Old Latin, Old Syriac, early translations, etc. ALL have SOME inspired words and whole verses.  

For example,

KJB Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

NKJV Genesis 1:4  And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

When the NKJV (or anything else) agrees with the KJB, those verses/words are the inspired words of God. The KJB (to my knowledge) is the only complete compilation of the inspired words of God without error, though other texts do contain some inspired words and even verses.

The early Christians hardly ever had whole portions of scripture. Some may have had a few books of the Bible, others may have only had a few chapters. Carrying around a 66 Book complete Bible was not a common practice in the early days of the New Testament church due to persecution and availability. The word of God was scattered around in different copies and translations, but of course God managed top supernaturally preserve His word through those copies and translations.

Some people do not acknowledge that God is the preserver of scripture. I have been told that scripture was not preserved perfectly because humans err in scribal work. They say that because humans are not infallible that this means that the word of God has not been perfectly preserved (James R. White says that copying and translating are strictly human process). These people seem to leave God completely out of the preservation of scripture! But God is THE preserver of scripture, humans are only instruments that God uses in the process.

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you

Bible critics often say, "So you believe that the KJB translators were INSPIRED?!" In a way, yes I do believe that. I do NOT believe that they received new revelation, but I do believe that the Holy Spirit led and guided them in the translating of the text. God is the preserver. That is why Paul told Timothy that he had "holy scriptures" and that "ALL scripture IS given by inspiration of God".......

2 Timothy 3:
[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
Timothy did not have any original manuscripts (except for 1 and 2 Timothy), he only had copies or translations. However, he still had holy scripture that was given by inspiration of God. The words in our King James Bible are (in preservation) the inspired words of God--the KJB is inspired. Some people mistake this to mean that I believe that the KJB translators received a new revelation, almost like Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon. But I believe NOTHING of the sort, I just believe that the KJB translators were led by the Spirit to compile the inspired words of God into one Book......given by inspiration of God. 

Also see these posts

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
And another post..... 

KJB Inspiration (quote)

Here is a comment my pastor had on my post "Where was the word of God before 1611?". --Hoss
"I agree. The only other reference to inspiration in the Bible explains how the AV translators were inspired:
Job 32:
8    But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

I know the words of God were available to man before 1611 because God promised they would be, but that doesn't mean they were all in one volume. People who have a problem with that should consider the following facts:
1. There was no written scripture for the first 2500 years of human history
2. For the next 1500 years there was not a complete Bible
3. God waited 4,000 years to send the Word of God, Jesus Christ, into the world 

Who are we to question how God does things? He sent the Word of God into the world when the "fullness of time was come" and He sent the word of God in the universal language of the world when the "fullness of the time was come"." --Pastor David O'Steen of Landmark Baptist Church
10.) If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place? 
HOSS: You were correct, this question is some "big number-2". 

What you are calling "KJV Onlyism" is just believing what the Bible says about itself. The Bible says about itself that it is inspired, pure, holy, preserved, etc. and that is what I believe about it. I believe that the Bible is the King James Version, feel free to believe those things about any version you wish. There is nothing "extra biblical" about believing what the Bible says about itself.

Well I have answered the Scholarship Only why don't they answer mine?

Questions for the anti-KJV.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Your questions or comments welcome.