Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Modern Version attack on Biblical authority

Today I think it would be wise to discuss the authority of the bible, and why it is so necessary for us all to fight against the philosophy of textual criticism.
If perhaps we were to look at a document like the US constitution, perfect in its current form (in the sense of 'exactly like the original'- being the original), we would consider the original 1st century autographs to be, perfect. Nowadays however, we don't possess these autographs, Its almost like what we have is a large series of pocket constitutions, made hundreds of years after the original, and the constitution itself is gone.
Imagine however, that each constitution was copied by hand, and each one maybe had a minor difference in spelling or even a word here and there different. If you were to bring them all together, you could use the vast majority to counter those changes, and get a perfect representation of the original. This would be the majority text, however this is also corrupted, due to the prevailing philosophies behind it, that of textual criticism, which still has many ommissions when compared to the Received Text.

Textual Criticism, its a hard subject to deal with. Basically, it could be viewed as a survey of available texts, but largely its a survey of the alexandrian line, and making other manuscripts fall into line. The alexandrian 'eclectic' line of manuscripts is referred to as the superior - or best available manuscripts, a lie as we all know. Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were little used prior to 1881, and despite their catholic origin, there is a reason they were unused. They were messy, heavily edited, and now they're used as the basis for ALL modern translations. Is this preservation by God? I think not!

Textual Critics, first and foremost treat the bible as middle east mythology, the same way they treat the Sumerian scriptures, and Enuma Elish, thats how they treat the Hebrew Old Testament, and thats how they treat the New Testament. The thousands of fragments mean nothing to them, no more than Josephus or the works of Caesar. Is this how we want our bible treated? For instance, I spent the best part of an hour trying to find a biblical history book on kindle that DIDNT treat the bible as an exagerrated fale history of ancient Israel. I had to go back to a book from 1870 in order to find that. You would do well to find a biblical commentary somewhere that doesn't come right out and say that the bible either lies, an author exagerrates, or its just plain wrong in light of modern archaeological findings. Those same commentators, are often bible translators.

The Bible has to be infallible, I know most people disagree here, it can of course be "the best we have at the moment", but if thats the case, where do we stop? According to Textual Critics we can never be 100% certain that what God wrote - we have. So why bother? Even if they are correct, there are plenty of other scholars saying that the TR is the correct manuscript line, and thus we can be happy and start translating bibles from it again, right?

Wrong.

If they were to do that, then they have a COMPLETED manuscript! They can't continually revise and edit it, and thus the big scam to make publishers and scholars loads of money is over with. Thats why we have a new ESV every five years, a new NIV every five years. Its not to accomodate new discoveries (if so ever generation of Christendom has been in darkness, and most likely still is), its not to accomodate better scholarship. Its to make MORE MONEY for the publishers. Thats why Thomas Nelson produced the NKJV, and also carries two dozen other translations. Thats why Zondervan produces both the NIV and carries the Satanic Bible. Thats why they all have their own commentary series, and study bibles, and why they copyright their materials. Its to make money, not to edify the churches. Its also why they say that the KJV is majestic, and a work of monumental importance - because they all sell it, of course, its flawed in light of better scholarship, I mean Paul didn't say 'brethren' he obviously said "brothers and sisters", and Paul didn't think women should be silent in church really did he, nor did he really want women to have long hair, and stay away from teaching males. No no, of course not - our better scholarship - will solve this problem of biblical misogyny.
Isn't it sad? That Christianity has been essentially gelded in the last 100 years? That thanks to not only the illuminati but also thanks to our own vanity we have allowed ourselves to become money pits for unscrupulous scholars, and to be mentally controlled by the media. So on two fronts the bible has been attacked. Not only are we convinced that we evolved from apes, but that the bible is an invalid source of history. The KJV is dull, old, boring and inaccurate - yet the NIV is seen no greater in the eyes of the non-believer, it doesn't help anyone. A Christian saved by grace SHOULD have no trouble with a KJV, when I first got saved, I remember I went upstairs, grabbed an old KJV and read the whole of 2 Peter, and there and then I knew God was real - because he described the present age.

Sadly within about a week I had fallen for the "KJV if inferior" line, and had bought and NKJV, I now have over 25 different bible translations on my bookshelf, hundreds of pounds worth of study materials, and all I needed was the KJV. (You can even look over my various blog posts and see the hatred I had for the KJV, for absolutely no reason).
I know the thought processes of the anti-KJV movement. But I tell you this, the one man who had faith in Jesus Christ was William Tyndale, the one translation that I can guarantee you would be faithful to the word of God is Tyndale's translation - the basis for the KJV. This man had such honor that he made a mistake in Matthew 23, and he prefaced it with a big apology! Nowadays they would wait 5 years before telling everyone, and call it a cadence of the greek or something ;)

Anyway rant over, God bless.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

KJV only, preservation, understanding, Greek, Tyndale and Modern Versions.


Answering questions on the KJV

Is the KJV the inspired, preserved word of God? Or is there in fact another translation that is inspired and preserved, and in fact the KJV has errors?

Yes the KJV is the inspired, preserved word of God. God says that he will preserve his word, I personally vouch for the Wycliffe bible as the first act of preserving it in English. Then Tyndale made a more accurate translation of the originals. Then the KJV perfected it. I would say any of the pre-1881 versions are quite usable and accurate. It isn't so much the bibles that are the problem but the philosophy behind them.

Why are the modern versions corrupt?

Its not so much the versions themselves, but the philosophy behind them that is the problem. When you buy a text critical bible, you are in fact denying inspiration, preservation, and divine authorship to the bible. Remember that before 1881 all bibles followed the philosophy that God preserves his word. Now we believe that God inspired the originals, and now we approximate to 99.5% the originals. A King James bible believer (KJVO) believes that the KJV is 100% the word of God, even down to the full stops, colons, semi colons etc. Now you may raise your eyebrows at such a statement, but every christian believes in the Holy Spirit right?

Many KJVOs in fact question the translation philosophies as well as the manuscript philosophy. Certain ways that bibles are written obscure prophecies about the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. They often even deny the divinity of Christ. This is not me just saying it, this is well known and all over the internet on various websites. As I am not here to prove, just to describe, I will forgo presenting the evidence, and just tell you to google.

Does the KJV have errors?

No,

Does the ESV?

Yes

NIV?

Yes

NASB?

Yes

HCSB?

Yes

How do I know? because all of them have had “updates”, and will continue to have updates.

But the KJV had updates!

Indeed it did, and it had no illusions about it, the KJV needed revision, and indeed some words were changed, updated etc. But the difference between them is the PHILOSOPHY, the KJV was made prayerfully, under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Words existed in the 1611 for the benefit of those in 1611, words were changed through to 1769 for the benefit of those people living then. By 1769 it was finalized. It may even be that sometimes there were errors, but is it without error now? YES. Will the ESV under its philosophy (that the bible CANNOT be perfect EVER) ever become perfect, no. Its deletions and omissions are permanent, and will never ever be rectified. Same goes with every other translation after 1881.

So you understand what I am saying about the philosophy affecting the translation, had the ESV or others of its kind been translated under the KJV philosophy, we may have had another modern, perfect bible. There is nothing to say that thees, thous etc have to be there, or archaic words of any kind for that matter. But what matters is whats in the hearts of the translators, compilers, editors, as well as the manuscript base that they are translated from. I personally prefer pure Tyndale for my bible reading, and I 100% believe it to be as inspired and preserved as the KJV. I believe it to be a step on the way to perfection, as authoritative as the KJV.

I don't feel that way (anymore) about any modern bible translation. When I hear someone appeal to the Greek or Hebrew, I kind of feel a little bit sick.  When the bible was translated into English, it was under the impression that ANYBODY could read it and understand it. Now we have a new priesthood that will often say "the Greek word says...". What use is that? No my friends, you can pick up an English bible and understand what God wanted you to understand. You will be told that debate is impossible unless you know Greek. How can you really know what the bible says unless you know Greek, because the English will never be as good as the Greek.


ITS ALL LIES!

I know it is, because God gave us the Holy Spirit, and he gave us the Bible in English. Now tell me, would you rather have a bible which was translated with the philosophy that there is absolute truth, that you don't need the Greek, that you; akin to a ploughboy, could know more of the bible than a Bishop (because you read said bible)? Or a bible which is translated under the banner of "making the bible easier to understand" and with the philosophy that there is no authoritative, preserved word of God anywhere, that we will never know for sure, that you must shell of out every few years for a better version, and that if you don't know greek you're missing something and may be a bit dense, and are unworthy of any sort of debate.

I have argued with such people, people who tell me that I am unworthy of discussion unless I have had 20 years of Greek training.

Come on folks!