What is Scripture ?

[Geo]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yes but what is Scripture? What ARE the words of God? There are as many translations as there are denominations. Since they all disagree with each other on hundreds of verses, which ones are correct? Is any one translation correct at all? Or do we have to pick and choose the verses we like best? Who then is your final authority? The greek, the hebrew manuscripts, and if yes which ones? Is your final authority Strongs, or numerics, your feelings, your high IQ or is it God?

If God is one, does He have different versions of His words that contradict each other? Of course not. Was God not able to preserve His word then? Of course not, what kind of god are you thinking of? He promises, and humans can destroy the fruit of His promise?

Psalms 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God can do all things, except one: He can not lie. God IS God. His integrity is absolute and without fault ! Can we have faith in His promise and in His integrity? If we don't have that much faith, what kind of faith do we have ?

This drawing shows 2 trees, and is a good starting point for personal in-depth studies to show ourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Al Cuppett's Illustration of Versions of The Bible

http://www.moresureword.com/alcuppit.htm

 

[mondar]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yes but what is Scripture? What ARE the words of God? There are as many translations as there are denominations. Since they all disagree with each other on hundreds of verses, which ones are correct? Is any one translation correct at all? Or do we have to pick and choose the verses we like best? Who then is your final authority? ........snip........

Authority comes from the fact that scriptures is "God breathed." Did God breath forth the scriptures in the first century with the autographs, or in 1611? I am aware we don't have the autographs, and we then will end up with disagreement as to which MSS is accurate. That merely means we have work to do. What makes the TR better then the majority of manuscripts and the older manuscripts? Is your authority the autographs or the Church of England?

 

[Benoni]

Scripture without God's Spirit is nothing but the letter that killeth. To many have lost their first love and trust words not that divine Word which comes from God's Spirit with in us.

There are two Words of God, the spiritual Word and or the letter that killeth.

 

[glorydaz]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yes but what is Scripture? What ARE the words of God? There are as many translations as there are denominations. Since they all disagree with each other on hundreds of verses, which ones are correct? Is any one translation correct at all? Or do we have to pick and choose the verses we like best? Who then is your final authority? The greek, the hebrew manuscripts, and if yes which ones? Is your final authority Strongs, or numerics, your feelings, your high IQ or is it God?

If God is one, does He have different versions of His words that contradict each other? Of course not. Was God not able to preserve His word then? Of course not, what kind of god are you thinking of? He promises, and humans can destroy the fruit of His promise?

Psalms 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God can do all things, except one: He can not lie. God IS God. His integrity is absolute and without fault ! Can we have faith in His promise and in His integrity? If we don't have that much faith, what kind of faith do we have ?

This drawing shows 2 trees, and is a good starting point for personal in-depth studies to show ourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Al Cuppett's Illustration of Versions of The Bible

http://www.moresureword.com/alcuppit.htm

I like the KJV....I only look elsewhere on occasion...for instance the word "hell", or when the voice of the Spirit puts it on my heart to look to the original language for greater clarification. When it gets right down to it, it is the Holy Spirit that enlightens our understanding of the written word. I totally trust that God has kept the Word exactly how He wants it and will lead those who seek with all humility...not leaning on their own understanding.

 

[Geo]

Authority comes from the fact that scriptures is "God breathed." Did God breath forth the scriptures in the first century with the autographs, or in 1611? I am aware we don't have the autographs, and we then will end up with disagreement as to which MSS is accurate. That merely means we have work to do. What makes the TR better then the majority of manuscripts and the older manuscripts? Is your authority the autographs or the Church of England?

Yes we don't have the autographs, so if only these have been "God breathed" we would have no written scripture at the present time. But that understanding is in conflict with the promise of preservation and purification.

What does purification mean in the "as silver" example in Psalms 12:6 ? When I purify silver 3 times, which version is more pure? Would the Holy Spirit be able to make the last purification as inspired as the autographs ? For me there is no doubt whatsoever.

Scripture without God's Spirit is nothing but the letter that killeth. To many have lost their first love and trust words not that divine Word which comes from God's Spirit with in us.

There are two Words of God, the spiritual Word and or the letter that killeth.

Scripture and the Holy Spirit are in perfect agreement - IF they are of the same Spirit.

I like the KJV....I only look elsewhere on occasion...for instance the word "hell", or when the voice of the Spirit puts it on my heart to look to the original language for greater clarification. When it gets right down to it, it is the Holy Spirit that enlightens our understanding of the written word. I totally trust that God has kept the Word exactly how He wants it and will lead those who seek with all humility...not leaning on their own understanding

That is essential here. What is any "high knowledge" if the foundation of it is not pure, how can any doctrine build on it be pure? Pro 3:5  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[Free]

Yes we don't have the autographs, so if only these have been "God breathed" we would have no written scripture at the present time.

And yet, the KJV is based on thousands of manuscripts...

 

[mutzrein]

Scripture without God's Spirit is nothing but the letter that killeth. To many have lost their first love and trust words not that divine Word which comes from God's Spirit with in us.

There are two Words of God, the spiritual Word and or the letter that killeth.

In which case the latter is not really the Word of God because it is dead . . .

 

[Geo]

Yes we don't have the autographs, so if only these have been "God breathed" we would have no written scripture at the present time.

And yet, the KJV is based on thousands of manuscripts...

...that all agree with each other. No confusion.

Let's have a look at the synopsis of the article and look at the graphical presentation.

Left Tree Source:

Alexandia, Egypt. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

No consistence or integrity in itself even at the source texts, resulting in new divisions and disagreements almost every year when a new and different translation from this text stream is published


Right Tree Source:

The Antioch, Syrian, Textus Receptus, Majority Text stream is the tree which produces the Authorized scriptures. These source scriptures agree with each other 100% of the time.


God does not change and is not the author of confusion.

 

[Free]

Yes we don't have the autographs, so if only these have been "God breathed" we would have no written scripture at the present time.

And yet, the KJV is based on thousands of manuscripts...

...that all agree with each other. No confusion.

My point is that the KJV, just like every other version, is based on the thousands of manuscripts, many with variances between them. So it is incorrect to put the KJV on the same level as the autographs.

Let's have a look at the synopsis of the article and look at the graphical presentation.

Left Tree Source:

Alexandia, Egypt. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone.

No consistence or integrity in itself even at the source texts, resulting in new divisions and disagreements almost every year when a new and different translation from this text stream is published


Right Tree Source:

The Antioch, Syrian, Textus Receptus, Majority Text stream is the tree which produces the Authorized scriptures. These source scriptures agree with each other 100% of the time.


God does not change and is not the author of confusion.

No, God isn't the author of confusion but the author of that web article is just as confused as everyone else. There are some serious logical errors but they've been dealt with in other threads before.

 

[Geo]

Study is better than referring to previous opinions on a forum. Paul did not say "show thyself approved unto men", there is nothing to be expected from men. This is about that we are at best only unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our basic duty to do.

At least some people have studied the sources where their Bibles come from during the last 5 years, and would not buy anything from Westcott and Hort now. But don't believe any statements without comparing several versions yourself, maybe only then it becomes apparent when you go through a few 100 verses in the main versions of today. Then you will hopefully see what is going on, and what's the common fingerprint in most of them. That was shocking to realize and people simply do not believe it, unless they do their own verse by verse comparisons. Do the work, or buy a version that suits your taste. We are free to choose, however responsible to God, and more so if you teach others, then it becomes crucial. And I rather get the basics right, before I would attempt to do so. An unprofitable servant that is also a "Bible corrector" has not done his basic duty.

 

[francisdesales]

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yes but what is Scripture? What ARE the words of God? There are as many translations as there are denominations. Since they all disagree with each other on hundreds of verses, which ones are correct?

Another issue you have not considered is which BOOKS are part of the Bible. Not only do we have the issue of translations, but which letters, poems, epistles, sermons, apocalyptic writings, etc., are to be considered part of Scriptures and which are not...

Thanks God He gave us the Church, not only to write the inspired Word of God, but to select and ascertain which ones WERE inspired.

Regards

 

[Free]

Study is better than referring to previous opinions on a forum. Paul did not say "show thyself approved unto men", there is nothing to be expected from men. This is about that we are at best only unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our basic duty to do.

The implications here seem to be that statements on a forum are mere opinion and that anyone who has a different opinion has not studied. KJVOism has been brought up many times and has been shown to be unreasonable and misleading, at best.

At least some people have studied the sources where their Bibles come from during the last 5 years, and would not buy anything from Westcott and Hort now. But don't believe any statements without comparing several versions yourself, maybe only then it becomes apparent when you go through a few 100 verses in the main versions of today. Then you will hopefully see what is going on, and what's the common fingerprint in most of them. That was shocking to realize and people simply do not believe it, unless they do their own verse by verse comparisons. Do the work, or buy a version that suits your taste. We are free to choose, however responsible to God, and more so if you teach others, then it becomes crucial. And I rather get the basics right, before

I have done the work. Between my e-sword collection and my Bibles in print, I probably have more than 20 versions. Are some versions better than others? Of course. Is the KJV the only "true" Bible and the rest are "perversions?" No. Each version has its difficulties, including the KJV.

 

[Benoni]

You can trust the written Word all you want, it is not God. It has been handled by man and his bias religion,

The Bible is perfect in its original form; the translations are corrupted by religious zealots. The Word Easter is in the King James, comes from the bride of Moab, hell is pagan in origin, godhead means divine and has nothing to do with a man made up godhead, no such thing. So often the word eternal and everlasting is put in places where it simply does not belong. Man follows religion not Christ.

2Th 2:11
(ALT) And for this reason God will send to them a supernatural working of deception, for them to believe the lie,
(ASV) And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie:
(CEV) So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie.
(CLV) And therefore God will be sending them an operation of deception, for them to believe the falsehood,
(DRB)(2:10) Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
(EMTV) And because of this, God will send them strong delusion, in order for them to believe the lie,
(ESV) Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
(Geneva) And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should beleave lies,
(GNB) And so God sends the power of error to work in them so that they believe what is false.
(GW) That's why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie.
(ISV) For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
(JPS)
(KJ2000) And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(KJVA) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(KJVR) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(LITV) And because of this, God will send to them a working of error, for them to believe the lie,
(LONT) For this cause, God will send them strong delusion, that they may believe a lie;
(MKJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,
(Murdock) Therefore God will send upon them the operation of deception, that they may believe a lie;
(RYLT-NT) and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,
(The Scriptures '98+)And for this reason Elohim sends them a working of delusion, for them to believe the falsehood,1Footnote: 1Eze. 20:25, John 9:39, John 12:40, Acts 7:42, Rom. 1:24-28.
(Webster) And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(WNT) And for this reason God sends them a misleading influence that they may believe the lie;

2 Timothy 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Yes but what is Scripture? What ARE the words of God? There are as many translations as there are denominations. Since they all disagree with each other on hundreds of verses, which ones are correct? Is any one translation correct at all? Or do we have to pick and choose the verses we like best? Who then is your final authority? The greek, the hebrew manuscripts, and if yes which ones? Is your final authority Strongs, or numerics, your feelings, your high IQ or is it God?

If God is one, does He have different versions of His words that contradict each other? Of course not. Was God not able to preserve His word then? Of course not, what kind of god are you thinking of? He promises, and humans can destroy the fruit of His promise?

Psalms 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God can do all things, except one: He can not lie. God IS God. His integrity is absolute and without fault ! Can we have faith in His promise and in His integrity? If we don't have that much faith, what kind of faith do we have ?

This drawing shows 2 trees, and is a good starting point for personal in-depth studies to show ourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Al Cuppett's Illustration of Versions of The Bible

http://www.moresureword.com/alcuppit.htm

I like the KJV....I only look elsewhere on occasion...for instance the word "hell", or when the voice of the Spirit puts it on my heart to look to the original language for greater clarification. When it gets right down to it, it is the Holy Spirit that enlightens our understanding of the written word. I totally trust that God has kept the Word exactly how He wants it and will lead those who seek with all humility...not leaning on their own understanding.

 

[Geo]

Deletions and Additions that result in "another bible" and Another Gospel

The number of times 15 Major words differ from the King James Bible:

WORD:

Christ
Lord
Jesus
God
Godhead
Lucifer
devil(s)
hell
heaven
damned
blood
salvation

see the top 15 chart at: http://www.av1611.org/biblewrd.html


Heaven and earth shall pass away, But my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35

on above chart are some of the versions that do not agree with that.
They decided which words have passed away now.

 

[Free]

You can trust the written Word all you want, it is not God. It has been handled by man and his bias religion,

The Bible is perfect in its original form; the translations are corrupted by religious zealots. The Word Easter is in the King James, comes from the bride of Moab, hell is pagan in origin, godhead means divine and has nothing to do with a man made up godhead, no such thing. So often the word eternal and everlasting is put in places where it simply does not belong. Man follows religion not Christ.

The written Word is not God, but it is of God. The problem with such broad generalizations about the supposed corruption of Scripture is that you then cannot even claim that "the Bible is perfect in its original form." In fact, Christianity is made utterly meaningless by such claims.

Deletions and Additions that result in "another bible" and Another Gospel

The number of times 15 Major words differ from the King James Bible:

WORD:

Christ
Lord
Jesus
God
Godhead
Lucifer
devil(s)
hell
heaven
damned
blood
salvation

see the top 15 chart at: http://www.av1611.org/biblewrd.html


Heaven and earth shall pass away, But my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35

on above chart are some of the versions that do not agree with that.
They decided which words have passed away now.

Again, such fallacious assertions have been dealt with in these forums already.

 

[Geo]

Textus Receptus (the Received Text), also known as the Byzantine Text or Majority Text, is the most reliable Greek text in existence. It is based on the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. That is why it is often called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus does not add to, omit or mutilate the Scriptures as does the Minority Text. Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations.

The Minority Text, by comparison, is dangerously corrupt! The two most prominent codices in this group are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are beautiful to look at and are in excellent condition simply because they are written on vellum and were seldom used, even by their custodians. But they are dangerously corrupt! They are covered with hundreds of amendments made over a long period; amendments which prove that even their owners knew they were hopelessly inaccurate. They omit scores of words, verses and passages of Scripture. They are totally unreliable and for this reason were rejected by discerning believers down though the centuries.

source: Bible Versions by David B Loughran

 

[Geo]

Let's read something we didn't already know:


Bible Versions

Which is the REAL Word of God?

King James Version, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version,
Weymouth Bible, Moffatt Bible, Knox Bible, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Living Bible,
Amplified Bible, New American Standard Version, Good News For Modern Man, New Scofield
Reference Bible, New International Version, New World Translation, New King James Bible. etc.

download: http://www.easy-share.com/1909063039/BibleVersions.pdf



Another Bible Another Gospel

download: http://www.easy-share.com/1909063072/An ... Gospel.pdf

 

[francisdesales]

Textus Receptus (the Received Text), also known as the Byzantine Text or Majority Text, is the most reliable Greek text in existence. It is based on the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. That is why it is often called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus does not add to, omit or mutilate the Scriptures as does the Minority Text. Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations.

The Minority Text, by comparison, is dangerously corrupt! The two most prominent codices in this group are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are beautiful to look at and are in excellent condition simply because they are written on vellum and were seldom used, even by their custodians. But they are dangerously corrupt! They are covered with hundreds of amendments made over a long period; amendments which prove that even their owners knew they were hopelessly inaccurate. They omit scores of words, verses and passages of Scripture. They are totally unreliable and for this reason were rejected by discerning believers down though the centuries.

source: Bible Versions by David B Loughran

The only place I have seen such claims made for the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are from "King James alone" sites, hardly unbiased places to find commentary on these two codexes. Every other scholarly article that I have read indicate that both are highly respected manuscripts. What is alarming is the obvious personal bias interjected into Mr. Loughran's comments:

"seldom used, even by their custodians" --- oh the implications from Mr. Loughran, an apparent mind reader who just KNOWS these monks never read Scriptures...

"covered with hundreds of amendments" --- as are the vast majority of manuscripts

"even the owners knew they were hopelessly inaccurate" --- ah, more evidence of his mind reading.

"omit scores of words" --- has it occured that other manuscripts may have ADDED words? Is it possible that the scribe was just copying what HE had, which may have been partial? Mr. L implies that they PURPOSELY omited words - more assumptions...

The only "discerning" believer who rejects these two ancient (among the most ancient complete manuscript that we have) codexes as "hopelessly inaccurate" are those who put forth the nonsense that ONLY IN THE KING JAMES' VERSION can we find the true and unadultered Word of God.

Scholars have found numerous issues with the King James version of Scriptures. The problem is that we don't have the autographs. Fortunately, Christianity is not a religion of the book, one that utterly relies on the exact words of the Bible (which we cannot absolutely verify), but one of Christ Jesus. This only became an issue for sola scripturists, which certainly was not the mode of Christian worship and belief before 1500.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Textus Receptus (the Received Text), also known as the Byzantine Text or Majority Text, is the most reliable Greek text in existence.

If I can make a factual correction here, the Byzantine text and the TR are not the same thing. In fact the TR is a minority of manuscripts within the Byzantine family.

It is based on the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts. That is why it is often called the Majority Text.

If you are alluding to the Majority text by Hodges and Farstad, that also is not the same as either the Byzantine or the TR. In fact the Majority Text has a textual apparatus on the differences with the TR, and it is quite substantial.

Textus Receptus does not add to, omit or mutilate the Scriptures as does the Minority Text.

The TR is a minority text. Also, the TR went through many revisions. Erasmus edition most likely added the comma (1 John 5:7).

Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations.

The word "purity" does not reflect the historical situation. When the TR first began, Erasmus had only a handful of manuscripts available. I forget the exact number, I think it was 6. So then, Erasmus collated only 6 greek manuscripts to begin the TR. I believe Beza had a few more. The bottom line is that the TR was used not because it was more "pure" but because nothing more was available.

The Minority Text, by comparison, is dangerously corrupt! The two most prominent codices in this group are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These two manuscripts are beautiful to look at and are in excellent condition simply because they are written on vellum and were seldom used, even by their custodians. But they are dangerously corrupt! They are covered with hundreds of amendments made over a long period; amendments which prove that even their owners knew they were hopelessly inaccurate. They omit scores of words, verses and passages of Scripture. They are totally unreliable and for this reason were rejected by discerning believers down though the centuries.

source: Bible Versions by David B Loughran

I dont know a lot about this. I have never seen these manuscripts first hand. I doubt Mr. Loughran did either. It could be that later Byzantine scribes wrote some side notes on the earlier manuscripts. Why would this prove they are corrupted? Why would it not mean that a Byzantine scribe wrote a note in the column and the note was the error?

 

[mondar]

Scholars have found numerous issues with the King James version of Scriptures. The problem is that we don't have the autographs. Fortunately, Christianity is not a religion of the book, one that utterly relies on the exact words of the Bible (which we cannot absolutely verify), but one of Christ Jesus. This only became an issue for sola scripturists, which certainly was not the mode of Christian worship and belief before 1500.

Regards

Francis, I hope you are aware of the major differences between the KJV only fundamentalists of recent times and those of reformation theology (or close to it). Have you considered that Geo is not even aware of the sola scriptura debate? The paragraph you wrote has more to do with me then Geo.

The essence of your thinking is in your words that I bolded, "which we cannot absolutely verify." The irony of this thinking is how similar you are to the KJV only fundamentalist, and how different you both are from me. Both you and the fundamentalist presupposes the need for "absolute certainty." You claim certainty in your infallible tradition, and the fundamentalist claims certainty in his KJV only position. I must admit that I do not have "absolute certainty," neither do I see the need for it.

So then your claim that sola scriturist have an issue with the fact that we do not possess the autographs is not accurate. As scholars collate mansucripts, we have "relative certainty" of what was written in the autographs. It is not beyond dispute, but it is sufficient for us to know what the autographs said.

More then this, while there are obvious differences in MSS, I dont see that these differences result in substantially different theology. Can you show me a difference in manuscripts that denies the deity of Christ? Most of the differences involve a movable nu, or some very minor issue. So then, even with the different MSS, it produces the same theology anyway, so what is the point of "absolute certainty?"