Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

  • Looking to grow in the word of God more?

    See our Bible Studies and Devotionals sections in Christian Growth

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

  • How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?

    Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject

    https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042

Bible Study THE BIBLE: VERSION? INSPIRED? COMPLETE??

  • Thread starter LionandLambMinistry
  • Start date
L

LionandLambMinistry

Guest
THE BIBLE: Which Version? Inspired? Complete??
The Lion and Lamb Ministry

THE BIBLE: WHICH VERSION?

These are difficult issues to address in one message/blog, but because of the continual questions we receive on this matter, we have put together an explanation of the evidence behind the Bible. We believe that in spite of certain so-called "archaic" words and in spite of what some have called "difficult English" for today's contemporary generation, the King James Bible (as well as the New King James Version) is based on solid manuscript evidence, and that most "modern" English versions are based on manuscript evidence that varies greatly from the King James tradition.

We are not saying that the King James Bible is the ONLY English Bible that should be used. We are in favor of "updating" the English of the King James whenever possible AS LONG AS the manuscript evidence is not altered or ignored. We do not possess any so-called "original autographs," but the manuscript evidence that we do have is greater than any other piece of literature in the history before the invention of the printing press. May the Lord use these simple facts to guide us all in getting the Word of God into the language of the people of this world!

INFORMATION ON THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE BEHIND THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE (called "textus receptus")

Our focus will be on the New Testament where most of the arguments come - it was originally given to us in the Greek language, the largest language in the history of the world!

The first edition of the Greek text to be published was that of Desiderius Erasmus in 1516 AD, followed by his edition in 1519 AD WHICH WAS USED BY MARTIN LUTHER for his German translation of the Bible. Erasmus also published editions in 1522, 1527, and 1535 AD, the last two of which contained some changes from the Complutensian Polyglot printed in 1514 AD, but not circulated until 1522 AD. This Complutensian Greek text was reprinted with only a few changes in 1571, 1572, 1573, 1574, 1583, 1584 AD, and in Geneva, editions were put out from 1609 to 1628 AD.

Simon Colinaeus, a printer in Paris, published an edition of the Greek text in 1534 AD based upon those of Erasmus and the Complutensian Greek NT. It was superseded by the famous editions of his step-son, Robert Stephens, who printed editions in 1546, 1549, and 1550 AD, the last one known as the "royal edition." This was the primary Greek text used by the King James translators, along with additions by Theodore Beza, especially the one of 1598 AD.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following primarily the 1565 edition by Theodore Beza. The preface to the 1633 edition gave the name to this historical tradition of manuscript evidence and called in "Textus Receptus." In the course of time, it was applied to the Stephens text of 1550 AD and those which followed. The primary edition behind this Greek text is that of F.H.A. Scrivener that was published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902 AD.

About two-thirds of the NT Greek text was discovered in the 20th century AD – manuscripts that preceded 300 AD and the famous Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

Codex Vaticanus differs greatly from the Textus Receptus throughout the NT. The great Greek scholar Dean Burgon published in 1881 that in the gospels alone, Codex Vaticanus omits 2877 words, adds 536, substitutes 935, transposes 2098, and modifies 1132 – making 7578 total changes! Codex Sinaiticus has 8972 changes from the Textus Receptus.

The popular Greek texts of today are dependent upon two ecumenical institutes in Germany. To illustrate, the 26th edition of the Nestle Greek text was done according to Kurt Aland "in cooperation with the appropriate agencies of the Roman Catholic Church."

Codex Vaticanus is the Greek text used by the Emphatic Diaglot which is behind the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses.

Codex Vaticanus ends at Hebrews 9:14 and excludes the Pastoral Epistles and the book of Revelation. It contains all 14 Apocryphal books – contains 7579 changes from the Textus Receptus.

Codex Sinaiticus has one-half of its NT leaves missing, and contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermes. It has 9000 changes from the Textus Receptus.

Tischendorf, the one who found Codex Sinaiticus, made 3369 changes in his 8th edition from his 7th edition.

In English, the above two MSS make over 30,000 changes.

Today we have over 5500 Greek MSS, over 10,000 Latin MSS, and over 4000 in other primary languages. We also have over 86,000 separate references in the writings of early church leaders.

The King James Bible was translated by 54 men who labored from 1607 to 1610 AD – spent hours in prayer and insisted on unanimous decisions on the readings of the text. It was indeed a remarkable effort and has been the Bible of the English speaking world for over 350 years.

Most importantly - this generation needs to return to the reading and study of the Bible itself! May our pastors and churches reemphasize the importance of the Bible in everything we say and do!
THE BIBLE:IS IT INSPIRED??

It is quite obvious to many believers that the Bible itself is under attack. The Bible was the textbook for America for over 100 years and we produced the greatest generation of scholars, scientists, lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers and preachers that the world had ever seen! Now, we are more sophisticated (we think!) and have become "judges" and "critics" of the Bible. Its historicity and accuracy is being challenged by many people, both secularists as well as religious people. We continue to question the authenticity of the Bible and the majority of Americans doubt that the Bible IS the Word of God and that it is inspired of God.

Inspiration does NOT refer to the writers, but rather to the writings. The Greek text of II Timothy 3:16 has three words that are translated as "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The word "all" (or "every") and the word "writing" (graphics) and the word "God-breathed" (or "inspired"). II Peter 1:20-21 insists that the writers were controlled by the Holy Spirit so that what was written was accurate and exactly what God wanted to communicate to us.

There is "external evidence" (like manuscripts, historical and archaeological facts, geographical information, etc.) as well as "internal evidence" (what the Bible claims about itself) that affects what we mean by "inspiration." Here is a possible definition:

INSPIRATION IS THE ACT OF GOD BY WHICH HE COMMUNICATED HIS WORD IN WRITTEN FORM AND DIRECTLY CONTROLLED THE WRITERS SO THAT WHAT WAS WRITTEN (original autographs) WAS FREE FROM ERROR!

The Bible is not only "inspired of God" - it is also inerrant (without error in the original autographs). It is the most translated and distributed book before the invention of printing (1450 AD) in the history of the world! No other writing is close to its manuscript evidence. Over 5500 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and over 1000 manuscripts in other languages - all before the invention of printing! Incredible to say the least!

Inspiration refers to ALL that was written - not just parts of it. If you can't trust the Bible's historical facts, then how can you trust its moral and spiritual teachings? The Bible is the most amazing book of all history - actually it is a library (integrated software system!) of 66 books. The Old Testament has 39 books in the Protestant Bible (exactly the same as the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh, but organized differently in three major sections - the torah, the prophets, and the writings.) The New Testament contains 27 books. The Catholic Bible has added some 14 Jewish apocryphal books, but the early church never considered them inspired of God even though some of them contain valuable history. There have been some modern attempts (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, etc.) to add books to the Bible as though they were on the level of the authorized canon of the Scriptures - but it won't work! These "pseudo-graphic" writings clearly reveal that they are outside the realm of Biblical authority and authenticity.

The Bible itself will bring a person salvation (Romans 10:17; II Timothy 3:14-15; I Peter 1:23-25) and give discernment to the believer as to what is right and wrong (Hebrews 5:11-14). Through the Bible we gain effectiveness in prayer (John 15;7; I John 5:14) and we are enabled to live victoriously over sin (Psalm 119:9, 11; John 15:3; I Peter 2:2-3). Through the Bible the true believer can be equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17).

THE BIBLE: COMPLETE??

We want to answer the question "IS THE BIBLE A FINAL AND COMPLETE REVELATION FROM GOD IN WRITTEN FORM?"

If that statement is true, then the Quran is NOT a revelation from God and neither is the Book of Mormon, nor any other writing claiming to be inspired of God as the Bible is! You got that!

HOW DO WE KNOW IF A PERSON IS SPEAKING FROM GOD'S REVELATION OR NOT?

That is an excellent question since so many religious leaders claim that God speaks directly to them as He did in the Bible. The following issues need to be addressed whenever you run into such a cl..

1. If what is predicted does NOT happen, then God did not tell them it would, no matter what they say! Read carefully Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

2. If the gospel that is preached is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Bible, then God did NOT speak to them! Read Galatians 1:6-10.

3. If what they say does NOT agree with the Bible, then God did NOT speak to them! Read Isaiah 8:19-20; II Peter 3:2.

4. If they add any additional truth to what the Bible already says, then God did NOT speak to them! Read Revelation 22:18-19.

WHY DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS A COMPLETE AND FINAL REVELAATION FROM GOD?

1. A THEOLOGICAL reason - "nothing is omitted that believers need to know!"

2. A LOGICAL reason - "early church leaders were closer to the issue. They consistently rejected claims by other writings."

3. A FACTUAL reason - "no attempt was made to change this completed Bible unto the Council of Trent (1540-1546 AD)." That council was a reaction to objections by the reformers regarding church tradition being more important than the Bible itself, and the failure of many church teachings to be supported by Biblical authority.

4. AN EXPERIENTIAL reason - "it has the proven power to save and change lives who believe its message and obey its teachings."

5. A BIBLICAL reason - THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT OF ALL! God indicates that His written Word would be a complete and final revelation!

FOR YOUR DILIGENT STUDY, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES:
Exodus 20:1; Deuteronomy 4:2; 8:3; Psalm 19:7; 119:89, 152, 160; Proverbs 30:5-6; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:31; John 10:35; 16:13; Romans 10:17; I Corinthians 14:37; 15:1; Galatians 1:9; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2:2-4; Jude 3; Revelation 1:1; 22:18-19

Hebrews 1:1-2 makes the clear argument that in the "last of these days" (correct Greek grammar) in which God spoke directly, there would be a final revelation concerning His Son, our Lord Yeshua. That final revelation is the last book of the New Testament which calls itself "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" - it is an uncovering or unveiling of His Person and majesty like no other portion of God's Word. It is in that book (in its last chapter - 22:18-19) that deals with the future - clear into eternity - that we have the warning against adding to its words or taking away any of its words. God's revelation ended with the Book of Revelation! We are no longer hearing God's direct and audible revelation - He is finished and now holds us accountable for all that He revealed to us about the past, the present, and the future!

MAY GOD RESTORE IN OUR HEARTS THE ABSOLUTE SUFFICIENCY AND ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE! IT IS THE INSPIRED AND INERRANT WORD OF THE ONE AND ONLY GOD, THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, AND IT IS A COMPLETE AND FINAL REVELATION FROM GOD HIMSELF!

Thank you for reading.. for further info, and for this message in its entirety on the link click below




Until next timeWalk with the King today and be a blessing!

http://www.lionandlambministry.com/
 
The Bible is complete, yes. But no English or other translation is perfect or infallible. I always use multiple translations together and compare the best textual translation in context and literalness. Even some of the Greek manuscipts (non-translated) are not infallible because they deviate in some form from the originals. It would be so much better if we just taught our kids ancient Hebrew & Greek and just got to the heart of the matter by letting them read it in the original languages.

That is just a short synopsis. Is that the type of feedback you were looking for?
 
personally I use only two bibles.
Don't shoot me :-D The new living translation, althoough I use it more as a commentary and the NKJV.

Those are the ones God inspired me to use.
 
As for me and my house, we shall read the King James Only!! :D The one, the only infalliable and final authority. (that ought to get some attention).
 
The one, the only infalliable and final authority. (that ought to get some attention).

Hehe :D. I'm not even going to even open that can of worms but you are technically incorrect because you failed to mention the originals in greek and Hebrew as being infallible. You also neglected equivalents in languages other than English.
 
cybershark5886 said:
Hehe :D. I'm not even going to even open that can of worms but you are technically incorrect because you failed to mention the originals in greek and Hebrew as being infallible. You also neglected equivalents in languages other than English.

Of course we don't have the originals with us today, sadly. I don't know about foreigh versions or who may have translated the Word into French, German, etc. And, since I only speak Southern English, a bit of GI German, and some high school French, I'm no authority on that matter. I suppose Luther translated into German but, I'm not sure about him as a scholar as he's wishy-washy about too many other things. Hopefully, he merely took Tyndale's translation and did it in German.
 
D46 said:
As for me and my house, we shall read the King James Only!! :D The one, the only infalliable and final authority. (that ought to get some attention).

Are you talking about the 1611 version or 1769 kjv ? :-D
 
The Bible: Which Version? Inspired? Complete?

I disagree that the KJV is a literal translation. Or, for that matter, practically all English Versions are in the same boat, containing many interpretations rather than literal translations.

The two most literal versions that I refer to are Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Concordant Literal Translation of the New Testament.

Bick
 
Re: The Bible: Which Version? Inspired? Complete?

Bick said:
I disagree that the KJV is a literal translation. Or, for that matter, practically all English Versions are in the same boat, containing many interpretations rather than literal translations.

The two most literal versions that I refer to are Young's Literal Translation, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and the Concordant Literal Translation of the New Testament.

Bick

Actually having studied Greek and I can both read and write it, I will say this...
The KJV bible does flow in line with the Greek as does the NKJV..These flow very well with the 1550 textus rectpus....Youngs has many mistakes that lean twords the liberal side.. The Concordant translation, is an abomination and is translated by UR folks and is the UR bible of choice......
http://www.1john57.com/literalerror.htm
As for the Rotherhams translation, well I don't know much about that. Maybe someone can shed some light on it...
 
If one wants to purchase a shortened version of the Westcott/Hort text with additions and various changes the Rotherham's bible is your cup of tea. As for me and my house...
 
D46 said:
If one wants to purchase a shortened version of the Westcott/Hort text with additions and various changes the Rotherham's bible is your cup of tea. As for me and my house...

1611 kjv :wink:
 
Re: The Bible: Which Version? Inspired? Complete?

Bick said:
I disagree that the KJV is a literal translation.
If you misspelled "liberal" and meant to type "I disagree that the KJV is a liberal translation", then I would agree with you. :wink:
 
King James Bible for me and nothing else will do.

I think you may have some information wrong on the creation of it. The translating of the KJV started in 1520's by a man in Germany who was later burned at the stake for it. His work was carried on and finished by however many by 1620's. What I heard at least.
 
KJV....if it was good enough for Jesus and the disciples, it's good enough for me..... :-D
 
I work with youth, and I thank God that there is more "modern" translations that the King James Bible, they wouldn't read it or understand half as much as they do to the ones written in language they are used to. I would rather they read the Bibles most of you seem to reject than didn't read one at all.
 
Back
Top