Hey Herb, Check It Out

A FORUM DEBATE WITH A BIBLE CORRECTOR

The following long but comic discussion occurred on a Debate FORUM. What it shows is that faith based upon scripture and properly applied is never at a loss with logic, human reason, philosophy, and the works of dead men. We were unable to piece all of the posts together serially, so expect repeats. – Herb Evans

BC:Hey Herb, check it out:Acts 19:20 Scrivener’s TR reads tou/ Kuri, ou (of the Lord) but the KJV reads “of God.”It is impossible for the original, infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God to have been two different words in the same instance. It was either "Lord", or it was "God". Either the TR is incorrect, or the KJV is. Heb. 10:23 Scrivener’s TR reads th/j evlpi, doj (of the hope) but the KJV reads “of our faith.” It is impossible for the original, infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of God to have been two different words in the same instance. It was either "the hope", or it was "our faith". Either the TR is incorrect, or the KJV is.Which reading is that of the original? The KJV, making the TR incorrect, or the TR, making the KJV incorrect?– Bible Corrector (Note: BC indicates Bible Corrector)

Evans: LOL! Do you even know what Scrivener's TR is or how OR WHEN it was formulated? It was reversed engineered from the KJB. But then, perhaps, you don't even know what reversed engineering is.

BC:So which one is wrong? The TR or the KJV?And if you say the TR, I'm wondering....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do.

Evans: You tell me instead of answering questions with a question. I repeat.Do you even know what Scrivener's TR is or how OR WHEN it was formulated?

BC:Yep. It was a back translation of the KJV in the late 1800's so that Schrivener could compare underlying Greek texts of various translations. Since the KJV doesn't match any preexisting mss or Greek NT fully, many KJVO guys believe it to be the only infallible, inerrant, inspired Greek New Testament. For the third time, So which one is wrong? The TR or the KJV?And if you say the TR, I'm wondering....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do.

Evans: Well, a TR in the 1800's is hardly what I call infallible, especially when it is compiled by a man. That being said, it probably is more accurate than the other TR's that do not agree with one another, but that has nothing to do with me. Still, the fact that Schrivener used the KJB as THE standard to correct the Greek is encouraging.

BC:For the third time, So which one is wrong? The TR or the KJV?

Evans: Well, since the English is superior to the Greek compilations, I would have to go with the KJB being correct.

BC:And if you say the TR, I'm wondering....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do.

Note: Bold Italics is repetitive to maintain continuity in intervening exchanges.

What do you mean "we" Paleface? No, not unless it agrees with the KJB. Do YOU think that we have a perfect Greek N.T. that you can hold in your hands, and can you say specifically its name if you so think? – Herb Evans

1. I'm wondering....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do. -- BC

Well, a TR in the 1800's is hardly what I call infallible, especially when it is compiled by a man. – Herb Evans

BC:Yet for some reason you seem to think that the translation that spawned Schrivener's TR was infallible.

Evans: Yet? You brought up Schrivener's not I. So, it is not my logic and reasoning that is under observation but yours. Whether, Schrivener used the KJB or not to get his Greek has nothing to do with a perfect KJB that preceded it. Schrivener, who admittedly was no slouch, placed more confidence in the KJB than some curbstone seminary Greek graduate.

BC:This is contrary to logic, reason, common sense, and intelligent rationality.

Evans: Likewise, everything you have postulated is contrary to scriptural logic, reason, common sense, and scriptural rationality. Bible correctors have no bigger boat to float in than Bible believers in that respect. However, that being said, the Bible itself is contrary to humanistic logic, reason, common sense, and rationality. Ask any atheist.

BC:Your only supporting argument would be what we call "double inspiration", which is pure conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking on your part.

Evans: Whose argument are we talking about? Yours or mine? Double inspiration of what? Jeremiah? Mine is not an argument but a declaration based upon relevant scripture in regard to inspiration, preservation, and infallibility. Whatever it is, the scripture cannot be broken, according to Jesus.

Well, a TR in the 1800's is hardly what I call infallible, especially when it is compiled by a man. That being said, it probably is more accurate than the other TR's that do not agree with one another, but that has nothing to do with me. – Herb Evans

BC:Of course not. You don't think God's Word was preserved in the Greek.

Evans: The question here is WHICH GREEK? And that will always be the question. Now, hiding behind preservation in the Greek SOMEWHERE will not get it for you.

BC:You hold the position bordering on lunacy which states that flawed Greek mss combined with flawed translators mixed with improper translation techniques somehow create the only set of writings that can be called God's Word! – BC

Evans: And you hold to the position that borders on lunacy of a GOB (Greek Only Bible), which states flawed Greek manuscripts that differ are compiled by textual critics and scholars that somehow create several compiled Greek writings that differ that can be called God’s word somewhere within them but only generally and not specifically, yet inspired and preserved. Again Bible Correctors are in no bigger boat that Bible believers.

Still, the fact that Schrivener used the KJB as THE standard to correct the Greek is encouraging. – Herb Evans

BC:Actually, he found that some of the KJV isn't even found in the Greek.

Evans:That is because the KJB translators did not use some Greek mss, due to corruption or loss hence, they rejected some Greek mss and used Latin and other language texts to facilitate the English. Of course Bible Correctors ignore the fact that there was both intentional and accidental corruption of many of the Greek manuscripts. Some of the Greek was not located until after the KJB was finished and corroborated what the KJB translators did.

BC:This is clear evidence that the KJV is not a divinely inspired work of God. It's the product of men, and as such reflects human craftsmanship. And his intention wasn't to correct the Greek. It was to examine the texts underlying varying translations.

Evans: Thisis clear evidence that Bible Correctors would have given the English speaking people something inferior that would reflect their human craftsmanship. Whatever Scrivner’s intention, as you read his mind, is none of my concern. Schrivener is your straw man not mine.

For the third time, So which one is wrong? The TR or the KJV? -- BC

Well, since the English is superior to the Greek compilations, I would have to go with the KJB being correct. – Herb Evans

BC:So the KJV, which came from the Greek, is better than the Greek, and even corrects it? Herb, what planet do you live on? Do you even have one solid reason why this illogical bit on incoherence should even be considered?

Evans: Well, since you are from the planet Klingon, you should be advised that the English did not all come from the Greek as you argue yourself in a circle. I have probably 200 reasons, but you do not want to consider scripture itself in a scriptural discussion. Instead you would rather try to use Bible Correcting logic and reasoning. My challenge is still open to discuss inspiration, preservation, and infallibility from the Bible itself, solely, without extra scriptural sources and jargon. Are you game

And if you say the TR, I'm wondering....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do. -- BC

What do you mean "we" Paleface? – Herb Evans

BC:I understand that men of you caliber must resort to insult when confronted with an irrefutable argument, but please...try to act your age, sir.

Evans: I understand that Bible Correctors of your caliber can’t tell the difference between pronouns, hence a reminder that you and I are not in the same boat when it comes to the Bible issue. Pray tell, what is your irrefutable argument that you have snipped from my above comment?

....do you believe we have a perfect Greek New Testament we can put our hands on? A yes or no will do. -- BC

Do YOU think that we have a perfect Greek N.T. that you can hold in your hands, and can you say specifically its name if you so think? -- Herb Evans

BC:Yep. I call it the preserved Greek mss. Put 'emall in your hands and you're holding a perfect Greek New Testament.

Evans: Well, of course you could not give a specific name, because you believe in a mystical Greek Bible of all the manuscripts extant (and some not extant yet?). Well, I will leave the putting them altogether into my hands to you. When you can do that, let me know. And you call my position lunacy. LOL! Since your Nehushtan was destroyed, when were all these preserved copies found? All at once? Or were there a different amount of preserved copies in various time periods? Who decided and decides which preserved manuscripts are preserved and which ones are faulty and have been messed with . . . YOU?

BC:Sure, there's some additional material, but there's also a perfect Greek NT. See, if I take the complete book of John, and I mix into it parts of 5 other books . . .

Evans:Not only is there some additional material, there is also some missing material in your mystical Bible. Who separates it? You? Your College professor? Has either one of you collated the material? What are your qualifications to do that or must you trust someone or something else. I think you Bible Correctors have a much smaller boat than Bible believers.

BC:I can still claim to hold the book of John in my hands while holding the entire mess.

Evans: You can “CLAIM” anything you want, but you have a problem supporting your claims with scripture. You have reduced your arguments to faith and a counter declaration of my declaration. Whose faith and declaration do you think God is going to honor? Whose faith and declaration do the scriptures themselves support?

BC:Likewise, God has kept every promise of preservation by preserving His word in the languages He wrote it in.

Evans: Do you have a verse and chapter for that pontification and declaration?

BC:Nowhere did He promise anything you seem to feel He should have.

Evans: No, God did not promise anything based upon my feelings. But Herb Evans has based his feelings and faith upon what God promised. Have a nice day, Mr. Nehushtan.

This is contrary to logic, reason, common sense, and intelligent rationality. -- BC

Likewise, everything you have postulated is contrary to scriptural logic, reason, common sense, and scriptural rationality. Bible correctors have no bigger boat to float in than Bible believers in that respect. – Herb Evans

BC:And do you care to actually demonstrate this, or is it merely another unsubstantiated claim you're becoming famous for?

Evans: No, I don’t care to substantiate a general claim that is a response to your general unsubstantiated, substance-less claim. You are wasting my time, unless you deal in substance rather than charge/countercharge.

However, that being said, the Bible itself is contrary to humanistic logic, reason, common sense, and rationality. Ask any atheist. –Herb Evans

BC: Um, the Bible is actually completely compatible with "humanistic logic, reason, common sense, and rationality".

Evans: The supernatural is never consistent with humanism, since it defies natural law.

BC:Your inability to present a successful apologetic against atheists is a result of your lack of intelligence in that area. That doesn't mean you should simply chalk off logic, reason, etc.

Evans:I don’t deal with Atheists, based upon my intelligence or lack thereof. I deal with them the same way that I deal with Bible Correctors with the scriptures. The wisdom of the worldly wise does not appeal to me. I declare to the atheist that he is going to hell if He does not repent and receive Christ, the same thing that I do with the hippy, the crooks, the religious pretenders, and the Bible Correctors. They all must get saved the same way. The Atheist declares there is no God. I declare there is. The heavens declare it to the atheist; the internal witness that he has erased declares it. No point in going any farther. The same way with the Bible Corrector, who did not believe the way he does now, when he was first saved.

BC:Look, I could continue tearing your posts apart and revealing flawed logic upon flawed logic, but it would merely go right over your head and accomplish nothing. I'll skip to the meat and bones here.

Evans: Continue? I did not realize that you started! You really think a lot of your self, don’t you? Most Bible Correctors do.

Your only supporting argument would be what we call "double inspiration", which is pure conjecture and perhaps wishful thinking on your part. - BC

Mine is not an argument but a declaration based upon relevant scripture in regard to inspiration, preservation, and infallibility. Whatever it is, the scripture cannot be broken, according to Jesus. – Herb Evans

BC: My question to you is this: what declarations in regards to "inspiration, preservation, and infallibility" were not kept via God's divine preservation of about 5500 Greek mss?

Evans: I don’t know and you do not know either. Who declared to you that there were 5500 Greek Manuscripts? God/ -- Herb Evans

My challenge is still open to discuss inspiration, preservation, and infallibility from the Bible itself, solely, without extrascriptural sources and jargon. Are you game?—Herb Evans

BC: Absolutely. I'll get us started. -- BC

Evans: Okay! Next post, unless you answer this one.

BC:Over the last 6 or so months, I've learned a consistent lesson here on the FFF: Hardly anyone changes their mind on anything. The only exception that comes to mind is with Mario, who was actually open-minded enough to consider alternative arguments. As a result, He saw the truth.

Evans: That is wonderful that you, our resident Seminary graduate expert could learn a lesson. But your next lesson should be that you can only change the minds of those, who are scripturally challenged, with humanistic logic and reasoning and pontification. I do not post to Bible Correctors to change their minds. I post to the onlookers, so that they will not be deceived by them. Do you really think that I would waste my time with someone like you to change your mind?

BC:Anyhow, as a result I've also learned this: it's far more beneficial for me to explore my own position than it is attack others. I'm not as concerning with correcting someone else than I am with ensuring that my position is Scripturally defendable.

Evans: Well stop right there. Everything thus far that you have presented me was not scripturally defendable.

BC:However...the KJV mess isn't a doctrine found in Scripture. It's a position taken by either side on the basis of their interpretation of some very arguable verses that may or may not have anything to do with God's message to mankind.

Evans: The 5500 Greek manuscripts are not found in scripture. There is a better rendering and this is an error and the other Bible Corrector, negative stuff is not found in the scriptures either. Any position on anything has some very arguable verses. Ask any JW. What does that gem prove?

BC:It's also the result of various philosophical positions concerning the words of God versus the meaning of God.

Evans: Hold your horses! It is the Bible Correcting positions and Calvinism that are humanistic and philosophical positions, clothed in sophistry and pontification.

BC:Lastly, it's the result of both sides believing different Greek mss to be the better text of the New Testament. With all the factors, it's easy to see how different people have different positions.

Evans: You only are posting only two sides. KJO’s are in a category all of their own; that does not need any Greek mss. They only talk about them in response to Bible Correctors who put all their eggs in that one basket. The KJB in English today is the standard and not whatever is yesterday’s Greek or compilation.