Luke 14:5 "an ass, a son or a sheep"?
Forum category
Luke 14:5 “an ass” or “a son” or “a sheep”?
Luke 14:5 - KJB - “And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”
NIV, RSV, NASB - “Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”
Whiston’s Primitive New Testament 1745 - “And said unto them, Which of you shall have a sheep or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?” (Manuscript D actually reads “a sheep” or an ox)
Let’s see….an ass, A sheep or A son? Yep, pretty close in meaning, right? What is going on here? Well, as usual, the so called “oldest and best Greek manuscripts” are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can’t seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired. Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with “an ass or an ox”, while Vaticanus has “a son or an ox” and Mss. D reads “a sheep or an ox”, and the bible versions are all over the board.
The reading found in the King James Bible of “an ass or an ox” is that found in Wycliffe 1380, 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer’s bible 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley 1755, the Revised Version of 1881, and American Standard Version of 1901, the Douay Version 1950, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969, Webster’s 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
However, beginning with the liberal RSV in 1952 they began to follow the Vaticanus MS (even though Sinaiticus reads an ass and both the RV and the ASV kept that reading) and changed the text from “an ass” to “a son”. This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message and Wallace’s NET version.
As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change. The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read “an ass or an ox,” but then changed to “a son or an ox” in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible. However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read “an ass or an ox”.
Foreign language Bibles that read ass- Jerome’s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - “vestrum asinus aut bos in puteum cadet” Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - “eowres assA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt” Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2004 - “¿Quién de vosotros, si su asno o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?” Italian Diodati 1649, and the Nuevo Diodati 1991 - “Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo asino o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?” Portuguese - O Livro 2000 - “Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar? “ French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE (ass) ou son bœuf tombe dans un puits, ne l’en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?” German Luther 1545, Schlachter 1951 - “Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder esel (an ass) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?” Russian Synodal Version, Chinese Union Traditional bible and the Modern Greek N.T. used in the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world.
What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called “oldest and best manusripts” (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the “scholars” who put together today’s conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike. Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong. For many more examples of how confused and contradictory the modern versionists so called “oldest and best” manuscripts REALLY are, See - http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm By His grace, believing the Book, Will Kinney
- 53 views
[Will Kinney][Kevin Miller]Will,
I don’t believe there was a perfect Latin bible or any other language before the English of the KJB. This may sound shocking at first, but look at what the other side believes.
Since I’m asking you for your position on the matter, I’m not all that interested in what the other side believes. If I have a question for the other side, I’ll pick someone to ask it to. And yes, your statement does sound shocking at first, since it seems to contradict something I read in one of your links. It said -
“It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do.”
Are God’s words really kept and preserved “throughout every generation” if there wasn’t a perfect Latin Bible or one in “any other language” before English? I understand your link seems to be saying that God recognized them as perfect even thought they weren’t yet, but the phrase “throughout all generations” seems to be talking about a man’s-eye view of time rather than a God’s-eye view of time, and that people, in each generation that people lived, would have a kept and preserved word of God.Here is the article that I think addresses the questions you bring up in the second half of your post.Here is a statement from this link that I am finding confusing_
http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm
“I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthly process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible.”
So is the KJV only position such that you believe that God’s words were kept and preserved imperfectly throughout all generations, even in the original autographs, until they were finally perfected in the English? What does it really mean to bring a translation to “full maturity”?
Thanks again for taking the time to answer these questions.
[Aaron Blumer] Will, just one question. If you’ve already been asked this, I apologize. Just have a second and can’t read the whole thread for it.Hi Aaron. Thanks for the question. Brother, First, to say that all translations are the inspired word of God is simply indefensible and ridiculous. Secondly, how could you possibly know if they “match the original” or not? You do not have any originals to compare them to.
I’ll preface the question with my own view on inspiration and translations: I believe all translations are “the inspired word of God” in the sense that they possess the quality of inspiration to the degree they match the original wording (assuming equivalents… since technically no words are the same if they are in a different language).
So here’s the question: when you refer the KJV as “inspired,” do you mean that it possess the quality of inspiration fully because it matches the originals fully, or do you believe that God performed additional inspiration in the creation of the translation? (Or some other possibility I haven’t thought of?)
Regarding your second question, Yes, I believe God has sovereignly placed His pure and inspired words in the English language of the King James Bible and that they match the content of the non-existent originals. Only God can do this because only God knows what the original were.
Here is something I wrote about this in the past.
Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their “bibles”, nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.
Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this “scholarly process” Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.
I often hear objections raised by “scholars” who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: “Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?” or “What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?”. Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.
Don’t the “scholars” who put together the constant barrage of “new and improved, based on the latest findings” type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don’t the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their’s will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be “the closest to the originals” of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).
Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this “scholarly process” and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don’t get it.
The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.”
The King James Translators also wrote: “Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good…if they were alive would thank us…the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished.”
God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.
I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. “For the kingdom is the LORD’S; and He is the governor among the nations.” Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just “happens to be” the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.
In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world’s population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.
Will Kinney
[Jay C.]Jay, your doctrinal statement about the never identified, nebulous and unknown Scriptures is totally meaningless as stated. Can you defend it in any concrete manner? Does it even make sense? It doesn’t say anything of substance. It identifies nothing. It is totally meaningless. Anybody can agree to it because it doesn’t say anything at all. It is just so much pious sounding mumbo jumbo that a person can say, “Oh, yeah, I agree with that” and think he is being quite orthodox. But when we look at it more closely, if we have at least two fingers of functioning forehead, when we take it apart and examine it, we find that it identifies NOTHING as being this “inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God” you all supposedly believe in. Are you professing a faith in something that you know does not exist?[Will Kinney]Jay replies: “Based on what? The KJV? Your logic defies…well…logic. If the KJV is the divinely authoritative standard that has been given directly by God to us (correct me if I’m misunderstanding you), then of course all the other versions are wrong. But that’s called circular reasoning.”
Hi Jay. The Bishops’ bible was quite good, but not the perfect words of God. How do I know this? Well, in the sovereignty of God it was rejected by the KJB translators and the common faith and God brought forth the greatest Bible in history and used the King James Bible for the first 200 years or so of the modern missionary movement.
I know the true Bible from the false ones for the following reasons:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/truebible.htm
Is it possible God will choose to give us a new perfect Bible? Possible but not at all likely. English is the closest thing to a universal language and other English bibles like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NET, NKJV, Holman etc. are getting worse, not better. They are based on the wrong Greek texts, reject the Hebrew readings in many places and contain false doctrines. People read and believe them less and less every day.
No, Jay, it’s simple logic. If the KJB is correct, then all others that differ from it in both texts and meaning are wrong. Nothing circular about it. It is the straight line of simple logic.
Secondly, neither Jesus nor the apostles used the so called Greek Septuagint. That is a huge myth.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nolxx.htm
Give me one verse that either Jesus or the apostles quoted from the so called pre-Christian LXX and prove it. You can’t.
Jay says:
“You also do not have any kind basis for determining the next divinely inspired translation that God gives. How will we know if the FInV (Future Inspired Version) will arrive, and what happens to the KJV (if it is inspired) at that point? How CAN you know - because someone else will tell you? I mean, the HSBC2010 could be the new FInV and you have no way of disproving it (well, until it’s released).”
Jay, your statements only reveal your basic “biblical agnosticism” - You do not know. In fact, right now you do not have any Bible in any language that you believe is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, right? If you do, then please tell us all exactly where we can get a copy of them so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the differences and similarities. But you won’t do that, will you. Why? Because you don’t believe such a thing exists.
Jay further says:
“Finally, your position seems to demand that either God was unwilling to permit a perfect, word for word copy to exist at a certain point (and that’s why he had to give the KJV) OR that He was unable to give something that would last the test of time. So was God unable to do what he said he would or unwilling to keep his promise of preservation? And why should you worship a God that is powerless to do what He promises?”
Jay, these are very confused and contradictory thoughts. It is the King James Bible believer who DOES affirm that God has given us His inspired and preserved words in “the book of the LORD”. We actually believe we have such a Book that has stood the test of time. It is your side of things that denies all this.As for the doctrinal statement, I DO believe the CORRECT Hebrew and the correct Greek original language texts are inspired and infallible. But God had to sort out the manuscript mess and lead the KJB translators to those correct and specific Hebrew and Greek texts that He inspired. Only God is capable of doing this. Once done, it is not necessary to do it again unless God decides to put His pure words into a different language. But I do not see any other language coming on the scene that will displace English.Jay finishes with: “But if you lied to the staff in order to sign up (because you do disagree with the DS, no matter how you spin it), then you should not be here. No Christian should sin by lying in order to teach “the truth”.
Why do I post here? Well, it’s to defend God’s pure words of 100% truth in the face of growing doubt and unbelief in the existence of any Bible in any language as being now the complete and 100% true “book of the LORD”. This forum is called Iron Sharpens Iron, right?
By, “the original languages” do you mean Hebrew and Greek? If so, then versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and NET versions are automatically disqualified from being inspired, inerrant and infallible because they all often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. Want proof?
Well, here it is.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm
http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew2.htm
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15
Will Kinney
[Aaron Blumer]Hi Aaron. Let’s look at the way you identify what the very ambiguous doctrinal statement says about the words of God. You interpret the statement “in the original languages” as being “the originals” or “the autographs”. If that is what is intended, then I do agree with it. I imagine most Christians would agree that the originals WERE inspired. However, no one can reasonably or factually say “the originals ARE inspired and infallible” simply because the originals DO NOT EXIST; no one living has ever seen them; they never did make up a Bible (66 books in one volume) and you wouldn’t recognize them if they fell out of the sky and landed at your feet.[Will] So your doctrinal statement in a very real way says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what or where this “word of God” is to be found either today or at any time in history. You have identified nothing concrete, tangible or in print that any of us can hold in our hands and read by this mumbo-jumbo “doctrinal statement”.Will, I didn’t see this till someone pointed it out to me. You can’t really feel that way about the DS and be a member here. Agreeing with it is sort of required.
Do you want to clarify?
By the way, “original languages” there just means the first copies. There’s nothing mysterious there. The DS means that inspiration occurred when each writer wrote and then it was over. God did not continue to inspire or re-inspire at any point.
So answering the question [URL=http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-luke-145-ass-son-or-sheep#comment-1…] here[/URL] would help clarify your relationship to the doctrinal statement.
Even in your statement here you use a past tense verb, not a present tense verb. You just got done saying that “inspiration occurred” and then you tell us that God did not continue to inspire. This clearly implies the contrary of what a Bible believer believes. God’s words ARE inspired. They are alive and are able to give life now, even if they are in another language. Your present view maintains that inspiration only occurred once and is no longer operative in God’s true words, because you think ONLY the originals WERE inspired, and the simple fact is there are no originals.
So, IF you look at your doctrinal statement as referring to the non-existent and unknowable originals as being what you say you believe, then you are professing a faith in something that you know does not exist, and you are implicitly affirming that there is no such thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible NOW.
Is that what you believe? Is membership in this Iron Sharpens Iron forum only for Bible agnostics and not for Bible believers?
If you guys want to ban me from your forum because I actually believe I have a real and tangible Bible in print that I can hold in my hands, read and believe every word, and you guys hold to the idea that “IF the originals HAD BEEN put into a single volume Bible then they WOULD HAVE BEEN the inspired and inerrant words of God (but we do not have them and don’t know what they said for sure)”, then go right ahead and do it. Maybe I don’t belong here.
Will Kinney
When I first pulled up this page, Proverbs 20:3 was the verse in the right margin: “It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute, but any fool can get himself into a quarrel.” Or maybe the NKJV puts it best: “… any fool can start a quarrel.”
[NathanL] When I first pulled up this page, Proverbs 20:3 was the verse in the right margin: “It is honorable for a man to resolve a dispute, but any fool can get himself into a quarrel.” Or maybe the NKJV puts it best: “… any fool can start a quarrel.”Hi Nathan. I’m not quite sure what your point is because you don’t really say anything nor ask a question, but my guess would be that since I merely asked a basic question about whether or not people here really believe “the Bible” IS the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God, and all I get are vague, undefined answers and threats of banishment, then I must be trying to start a quarrel.
Or when I show that the doctrinal statement concerning the Scriptures here in fact does not say anything of substance, has no clear meaning and defines nothing, that I must be some sort of a trouble maker for pointing this out. Is that what you are trying to say?
Do you or do you not believe there exists or ever existed such a thing as the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God in any Bible in any language on the face of this earth? “Yes, No, I don’t know, or I don’t care - don’t bother me with pestering and uncomfortable questions that make me think”?
Will Kinney
[Will Kinney] Do you or do you not believe there exists or ever existed such a thing as the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God in any Bible in any language on the face of this earth?does the septuagint meet your idea of a perfect translation? why or why not?
Will,
I’ve just caught up on this thread today. A few thoughts come to mind.
1). Your position regarding Psalm 12:6 is a mighty thin thread on which to hang so much teaching. Here’s why: The meaning of the simile is NOT that the word of God was refined 7 times. It is that it is like gold that has been refined 7 times. The verse is emphasizing the purity of God’s word. It is not stating that anything occurred 7 times with regard to God’s word. This is the nature of simile. How do we know this? Because the comparative word on both sides of the word “as” is “pure/purified”.
If I were to say, “He is full of nervous energy, like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs”, the implication is that he is nervous like a cat would be with its tail in constant rocking-chair peril. The way you are doing the comparison in Psalm 12:6 would be similar to taking the above simile and saying “He is in a room full of rocking chairs and nervous about it” – which is not what the simile is saying at all.
2). It has always been my understanding that the KJVO folk are in search of greater certainty with regards to God’s word than, say, the Eclectic Text theories can provide. It becomes an issue of faith: “We must have the certain word of God.” But your position seems based on a step of faith that is pretty large: that the KJV is the final, preserved, purified text. You have no written statement from God to that effect. Even if I accept your interpretation of Psalm 12:6, choosing 7 translations from the entire history of translation so that you end up with the KJV being perfect is a SPECULATION about the meaning of that verse, but not an interpretation of it. As such, you are placing your faith in a speculation that brings you greater certainty. It is an issue of faith. But those of us who disagree with you are also exercising the same kind of faith. We are speculating about the historical aspects (which manuscript family is more accurate), but we are placing our faith in God to ensure that the vital content of His Word has not been lost in the transmission process.
3). You may object to the above because you believe that our position does compromise doctrinal material. But having read your article on doctrinal differences, I didn’t see any real doctrines at stake. Like so many of the KJVO crowd, you seem to center on a verse or two that seems to teach false doctrine, but ignore the dozens of passages that teach good doctrine on the same issue. It’s not as if the NASB, ESV, and NIV are the only translations with tough passages. The KJV has many also. There needs to be evenness in handling the issues here. I can take you to verses in the KJV that seem to deny the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, etc. Of course, you can explain these passages and give counter-passages. Well, I can do the same with any of the verses to which you object in the NASB, ESV, NIV, etc. It seems that the double-standard here is NOT based on false teaching per se, but that the verse is handled differently than the KJV translators did.
4). I note that you dismissed Ron Bean’s question about “thoroughly” and “throughly” as being mere spelling differences, and accused him of “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. It’s strange that the various English KJV editions are cut such slack when the Greek manuscripts are castigated by you for EXACTLY this kind of difference.
5). I did not note any place on your site where you deal with issues such as differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, or the various revisions of the KJV that brought us to the one most KJV users hold today. These would strike me as critical issues to your position, and I would be interested in your answer to them, though I expect I know what you’re going to say.
I’ve just caught up on this thread today. A few thoughts come to mind.
1). Your position regarding Psalm 12:6 is a mighty thin thread on which to hang so much teaching. Here’s why: The meaning of the simile is NOT that the word of God was refined 7 times. It is that it is like gold that has been refined 7 times. The verse is emphasizing the purity of God’s word. It is not stating that anything occurred 7 times with regard to God’s word. This is the nature of simile. How do we know this? Because the comparative word on both sides of the word “as” is “pure/purified”.
If I were to say, “He is full of nervous energy, like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs”, the implication is that he is nervous like a cat would be with its tail in constant rocking-chair peril. The way you are doing the comparison in Psalm 12:6 would be similar to taking the above simile and saying “He is in a room full of rocking chairs and nervous about it” – which is not what the simile is saying at all.
2). It has always been my understanding that the KJVO folk are in search of greater certainty with regards to God’s word than, say, the Eclectic Text theories can provide. It becomes an issue of faith: “We must have the certain word of God.” But your position seems based on a step of faith that is pretty large: that the KJV is the final, preserved, purified text. You have no written statement from God to that effect. Even if I accept your interpretation of Psalm 12:6, choosing 7 translations from the entire history of translation so that you end up with the KJV being perfect is a SPECULATION about the meaning of that verse, but not an interpretation of it. As such, you are placing your faith in a speculation that brings you greater certainty. It is an issue of faith. But those of us who disagree with you are also exercising the same kind of faith. We are speculating about the historical aspects (which manuscript family is more accurate), but we are placing our faith in God to ensure that the vital content of His Word has not been lost in the transmission process.
3). You may object to the above because you believe that our position does compromise doctrinal material. But having read your article on doctrinal differences, I didn’t see any real doctrines at stake. Like so many of the KJVO crowd, you seem to center on a verse or two that seems to teach false doctrine, but ignore the dozens of passages that teach good doctrine on the same issue. It’s not as if the NASB, ESV, and NIV are the only translations with tough passages. The KJV has many also. There needs to be evenness in handling the issues here. I can take you to verses in the KJV that seem to deny the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, etc. Of course, you can explain these passages and give counter-passages. Well, I can do the same with any of the verses to which you object in the NASB, ESV, NIV, etc. It seems that the double-standard here is NOT based on false teaching per se, but that the verse is handled differently than the KJV translators did.
4). I note that you dismissed Ron Bean’s question about “thoroughly” and “throughly” as being mere spelling differences, and accused him of “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel”. It’s strange that the various English KJV editions are cut such slack when the Greek manuscripts are castigated by you for EXACTLY this kind of difference.
5). I did not note any place on your site where you deal with issues such as differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions, or the various revisions of the KJV that brought us to the one most KJV users hold today. These would strike me as critical issues to your position, and I would be interested in your answer to them, though I expect I know what you’re going to say.
[Will Kinney] Jay, your doctrinal statement about the never identified, nebulous and unknown Scriptures is totally meaningless as stated. Can you defend it in any concrete manner? Does it even make sense? It doesn’t say anything of substance. It identifies nothing. It is totally meaningless. Anybody can agree to it because it doesn’t say anything at all. It is just so much pious sounding mumbo jumbo that a person can say, “Oh, yeah, I agree with that” and think he is being quite orthodox. But when we look at it more closely, if we have at least two fingers of functioning forehead, when we take it apart and examine it, we find that it identifies NOTHING as being this “inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God” you all supposedly believe in. Are you professing a faith in something that you know does not exist?Sure I can.
By, “the original languages” do you mean Hebrew and Greek? If so, then versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman and NET versions are automatically disqualified from being inspired, inerrant and infallible because they all often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places. Want proof?
[II Peter 1:20-21, KJV] “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”Since only those Holy Men (apostles/prophets) were moved by God, only the product could have been perfect and without error. As copies were made and the Word circulated, those manuscripts were copied, and copied, and copied again, culminating in the translations that we use today. I believe that God, in His providential care and concern for His Word, has preserved the Word through this process, even though we don’t have perfectly identical copies of all manuscripts. The bulwark of those MSS is a redundant failsafe, keeping the Bible true and trustworthy. I used the KJV for many years, switched to the NASB once I got into college (fourteen years ago), and then changed again to arrive at the ESV preferred position that I am at now. God’s Word still holds the power that I need to live for and learn about God, whether it’s the KJV, ESV, NIV, NASV, HCSB, NKJV or other versions. My wife uses and loves the KJV, and we’ve never had any issues about my Bible being ‘errant’ when compared to hers, although we do cross-reference them all the time to see what the other person’s reading and to see the differences.
Furthermore, I think that to argue your position, you HAVE to believe that God was unable to keep His promise of preservation (in violation of Scripture) or be incapable of preserving His word to necessitate an act of divine re-inspiration (which is it’s own kettle of fish). I also think that to believe that a Christian must have a perfect and inerrant translation really demonstrates disbelief in the nature of God Himself - since He has promised to do to preserve His word for us, as you yourself have noted on the basis of several passages.
So you and I are on polar opposites on this issue. I’ll still disagree with you on the basis of theology, the history of theology, and on church history. As I noted before, the Inspired KJV position is at best 150 years old, and the sooner your idea vanishes from the Earth, the happier I’ll be.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] As I noted before, the Inspired KJV position is at best 150 years old, and the sooner your idea vanishes from the Earth, the happier I’ll be.Well said.
Discussion