Faith’s Strength

[netchaplain]

But, again, this an error in reasoning on your part (and extremely common in KJVOism), called begging the question. You first assume that the KJV is correct and use that to conclude other versions are wrong and the KJV is correct. The KJV could just as likely have verses removed or added (like 1 John 5:7), or have slightly altered text.

It is not rational to believe that the text of newer versions have made the changes and not that of the TR, nor that “modern versions . . . do not contain the entire Word of God.” The vast majority of translations say all the same things, just in different ways.

Hi and appreciate your care for this site!

KNV and NKJV are not the only translations that retain the entire Word without any changes. A change in a translation means it only presents part of Scripture or it's saying something different. There are others like the KJV and the NKJV that uses the Majority Text or Byzantine Text instead of the Minority Text:

The Webster Bible, for example refers to Noah Webster's 1833 revision of the King James Version of the Bible. Webster, known for his dictionaries, aimed to modernize the language of the KJV, replacing archaic words and correcting grammatical errors, but with minimal changes to the text itself. He also introduced some euphemisms to replace potentially offensive language. -Google

 

[live2blieve]

live2blieve, what "cloud of witnesses" do you think Hebrews 12:1 is referring to? In the context, it is all the Old Testament people of faith that chapter 11 describes.

This is true. However, this principle of numerous witnesses applies to many Biblical issues including the Gospel (e.g., Luke 24:27) so that our faith is not blind.

 

[Free]

Hi and appreciate your care for this site!

Thank you!

KNV and NKJV are not the only translations that retain the entire Word without any changes.

Again, this is based on fallacious reasoning for at least five reasons. Frist, we don't have the original autographs, so there are changes due to copying, regardless of translation.

Second, translating from one language to another, maybe even especially an ancient one to a modern one, is going to inherently introduce changes because translators have to make decisions on how to translate many things that don't translate directly.

Third, it is begging the question by first assuming that such translations are correct and without changes, and then using that to conclude that other translations are incorrect and have changes.

Fourth, it pushes very close to ethnocentrism, as this argument would only apply to English translations. It would mean that translations into other languages have some serious problems.

Fifth, it goes far beyond what even the translators of the KJV thought about their translation.
https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html (Note especially the last four sections.)

A change in a translation means it only presents part of Scripture or it's saying something different.

Not necessarily. Most modern translations say the same things but in different ways.

There are others like the KJV and the NKJV that uses the Majority Text or Byzantine Text instead of the Minority Text:

The Webster Bible, for example refers to Noah Webster's 1833 revision of the King James Version of the Bible. Webster, known for his dictionaries, aimed to modernize the language of the KJV, replacing archaic words and correcting grammatical errors, but with minimal changes to the text itself. He also introduced some euphemisms to replace potentially offensive language. -Google

Most manuscript evidence came after the KJV was written. Those must be taken into account. A good study Bible will make note of different manuscript readings and issues with translation.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

This is true. However, this principle of numerous witnesses applies to many Biblical issues including the Gospel (e.g., Luke 24:27) so that our faith is not blind.

That observation is true, @live2blieve0. God used the many eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection to convince me that it was a historical event by the miracle-working God.

 

[netchaplain]

Most manuscript evidence came after the KJV was written. Those must be taken into account. A good study Bible will make note of different manuscript readings and issues with translation.

All I want to do at this time is to mention that most manuscripts support the Majority Text (5,800 manuscripts). There are only a few manuscript sources available for Minority Text: Vaticanus, Sinaticus and the Alexandrina (three manuscript copies; none of these ancient translation contain the entire Bible. These three weren't discovered until the 14-15th centuries, which are the oldest but only few in number.

The scribes wouldn't copy any of those from the Minority source because they are too corrupted, being from Gnostics and other non-Christian copiers. They did not ware out like the Majority text did from coping. Nearly all of the copies in the MT are mostly 9th century. They contain all the Bible and have always been the most favorite to manuscript copiers.

Google- The term "Minority Text" generally refers to the text-type that differs from the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. While estimates vary, it's often said that 80-90% of all manuscripts support what is called the "Majority Text" (also known as the Byzantine text-type). Therefore, the "Minority Text" would be supported by a smaller percentage, potentially 10-20% of the manuscripts. This minority text-type is also known as the Alexandrian text-type.

 

[Free]

All I want to do at this time is to mention that most manuscripts support the Majority Text (5,800 manuscripts). There are only a few manuscript sources available for Minority Text: Vaticanus, Sinaticus and the Alexandrina (three manuscript copies; none of these ancient translation contain the entire Bible. These three weren't discovered until the 14-15th centuries, which are the oldest but only few in number.

The scribes wouldn't copy any of those from the Minority source because they are too corrupted, being from Gnostics and other non-Christian copiers. They did not ware out like the Majority text did from coping. Nearly all of the copies in the MT are mostly 9th century. They contain all the Bible and have always been the most favorite to manuscript copiers.

Google- The term "Minority Text" generally refers to the text-type that differs from the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts. While estimates vary, it's often said that 80-90% of all manuscripts support what is called the "Majority Text" (also known as the Byzantine text-type). Therefore, the "Minority Text" would be supported by a smaller percentage, potentially 10-20% of the manuscripts. This minority text-type is also known as the Alexandrian text-type.

A couple of things:

1. The Minority Text is older with fewer copies, which works in its favour. The more a manuscript is copied, the more likely errors are introduced each time. I don't think there is anything to support the idea that "they are too corrupted, being from Gnostics and other non-Christian copiers." They should not be excluded from consideration.

2. I should clear up that the KJV isn't actually based on the Majority Text, but the Textus Receptus; the TR is based on the MT, but they are not the same. Not to mention there are various versions of the TR.

Here is a good article: https://www.bereanpatriot.com/major...ext-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/

 

[netchaplain]

A couple of things:

1. The Minority Text is older with fewer copies, which works in its favour. The more a manuscript is copied, the more likely errors are introduced each time. I don't think there is anything to support the idea that "they are too corrupted, being from Gnostics and other non-Christian copiers." They should not be excluded from consideration.

2. I should clear up that the KJV isn't actually based on the Majority Text, but the Textus Receptus; the TR is based on the MT, but they are not the same. Not to mention there are various versions of the TR.

Here is a good article: https://www.bereanpatriot.com/major...ext-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/

I've appreciated your replies on this subject, but we are going to have varying information about it; it is a very difficult subject to get right. God bless!

 

[live2blieve]

That observation is true, @live2blieve0. God used the many eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection to convince me that it was a historical event by the miracle-working God.

Not only the eyewitnesses, but more importantly the witnesses in the Law and Prophets:

(1hr12min – 2hr02min)

 

[KV-44-v1]

Hi, and thanks for the reply! True, faith can come by proof, but if proof is required it's a weak faith (not including you here). If proof comes when not seeking proof, faith is strong; but if seeking proof, faith is "wicked and adulterous" (Mat 16:4 - again, not including you here); because proof eliminates faith. This is why God reduced the proof, so faith can be at it's strongest, for faith will not be needed in the next life. Then we will walk by sight.

"Faith is the substance," not proof. God uses faith to save people, it's "through faith" only that we are saved (Eph 2:8).

Your entire argument obliterates itself because you are using evidence to back your claim that faith must be blind.
Remember the Bereans?? Love God with ALL your MIND??

The belief "Faith = Blind faith" is unBiblical and has never been the traditional view. You are falling for the athiests' ERROR/LIE that faith is "blind". Please discard this unnecessary view as it is athiests' favoritve excuse to appeal to. DON'T GIVE THEM ANYTHING.

there is Reasonable Faith and there is Blind faith.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Whether ones faith is strong or weak or non-existent is determined by God.

God wants everyone to repent and come to the Truth, right?
So God would have everyone's Faith be strong and nobody's be "non existent"?
Do people need to ask for Faith?
Does "non existent Faith" come about because God didn't give them Faith - because they didn't ask Him?

 

[Fastfredy0]

God wants everyone to repent and come to the Truth, right?

Apparently not as proven by the fact that in order to get to heaven one must have faith in Christ, yet billions of people have died who never heard of Christ. Therefore, God has not facilitated the possibility of salvation for those people.

So God would have everyone's Faith be strong and nobody's be "non existent"?

Not so as I proved above. Before they (Jacob and Esau) were born God chose to love one and hate the other.

Do people need to ask for Faith?

Not sure what you mean by "need". I would say it is wise to ask for more faith. Men cannot influence God. Job 35:7-8. The freedom of God rules and not the supposed freedom of men that would control God.

Does "non existent Faith" come about because God didn't give them Faith - because they didn't ask Him?

Various reasons. As I pointed out above, "faith cometh by hearing" and many are dead who never heard the gospel of salvation.
Regeneration is the cause of faith.

• John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh conveys no benefit [it is of no account]. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life [providing eternal life] … 65 And He was saying, “This is the reason why I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him [that is, unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.”
• John 6:29 Jesus answered, “This is the work of God: that you believe [adhere to, trust in, rely on, and have faith] in the One whom He has sent.” Clearly this verse defines faith as a work. Thus faith must originate from God since God’s grace does not include man works (Galatians 5:2).
• John 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh [the flesh is carnal and flesh always lusteth against the Spirit], nor of the will of man, but of GOD.
• 1 Corinthians 12:3b And no one can [really] say, Jesus is [my] Lord, except by and under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.

yada, yada, yada

Man is free to follow his desires, but man does not choose his desires. The sin nature which determines a person's desires was not chosen by men, but given them at birth. Psalm 51:5