"....in quietness and trust is your strength..." The quiet of our Santa Barbara hotel room and the pool area, pictured above, was good for us. I hope this Sunday brings you quiet....and trust.....just a few of God's many blessings!
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
80 comments:
Charming place.
Again it disturbs me that we no longer have an Authorized version of the Bible which all are taught, but this chaotic multiplicity of different wordings. This all started in 1881 when the men appointed to update the King James instead introduced a whole new set of corrupted Greek texts and set about retranslating the entire Bible so that it had as little in common with the King James as they could bring about. In this they completely violated the charge of the committee that had appointed them, which was to preserve as much as possible of the original. No, they made changes right and left, hating the King James that much. They weren't even genuine Christian believers.
So the King James never was updated as planned, but I can't for the life of me see why your reading should be preferred to the KJV standard:
"In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength."
Sorry, CJ...I'm using the NIV here near my desk.
The KJV is very beautiful and closer to the original sense, I'm sure.
And, yes, it is a very charming place...and QUIET!
I'm planning a more frenzied Sunday morning... a counter-attack... actually, more of a blitzkrieg!
;-)
Fj..I'll be looking forward to that.
Begala is SUCH a twit.......and showed it so beautifully in that piece! Good luck, Sunday or no Sunday!
When I am studying the Bible, I like to compare several versions; the KJV, NIV, NASV, and the RSV. I do not own a paraphrased version, nor would I use it if I did. When ever there is a question on the translation, I aways fall back on the KJV.
Z, thanks for the visit and your great comments.
A lovely post for this Sunday. It is too bad that we don't believe those words. Often we become so harried and worried that we forget where our confidence lies. If I remember correctly without looking it up, it goes on to say (in the KJV) and ye would not.
Shame on me. May I learn that sweet trust in these days when it is so easy to fret. You have a good day too.
wooo I'm so jealous...looks sooooooooo relaxinggggggggg!
I can't wait to get over to Z's place on Sunday mornings. I'm glad you started this little series for Sundays.
too bad the KJV was so badly translated in certain places.
Have a nice Sunday.
I mean the only Authorized version would be the one in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
da....did you see where I added Eccl. 10:2 to my sidebar in the orange? At the bottom? I'll try to figure out how to make it more obvious, but I loved that and thank you for it!! Always good to read your blog (such good thinking) and have you here.
Angel; it IS relaxing, just 18 rms, you rarely see anyone and so beautiful and 1/2 block from the ocean. QUIET nice! The rooms aren't the most modern, bathrooms are small and, as my husband says, one has to run around the shower floor trying to catch the water drops from the shower head! (not quite THAT bad, Mr. Z!) but it's wonderful.
Beverly..thanks! By the way, I linked Carmi to Pinky, both wonderful photographers and marvelous writers and they're off to the races already in sharing their esteem for each other..GREAT!
For those of you interested in seeing some nice work, a great break from politics this Sunday...check out:
http://writteninc.blogspot.com/
Read what he SAYS, too..lovely.
and most of you know Pinky, who is CHEESE IN MY SHOES on my blogroll. Great stuff!
Pops, you are SO sweet. I like doing this on Sundays because it helps ME get in the mood, too..!Glad you enjoy it.
Elbro; there's a book which shows the Greek for the words which are most mischaracterized by most of the versions. I'm thinking about getting it. Want the title, per chance?
GREAT SUNDAY, folks!!
I'll bet morning coffee tasted wonderful on one of those balconies. Hmmmm.
Bush and Cheney are skipping the Convention due to the storms.
Morgan
It's funny how the mornings around here seem to start out dreary, then heats up with the sun coming out by around noon.
Hope you enjoy your Sunday, sunny or shady.
Z, charming is the right word. A great place to just relax, and kick back.
So glad you and Mr. Z got away from the hubbub here, and also had the chance to eat all that good food Z, which I know makes a really successful vacation for you. Ha, ha.
Pris
I don't have a thing about Sunday at all. The Christian Sabbath is resting in Christ -- every day. Nevertheless I wish everyone a peaceful day who seeks it. Mine will probably be the same as every day.
Elbro, the KJV needs some corrections, but really extremely minor ones. That's what the commission of 1881 was supposed to accomplish. But that accusation that the translation is "terrible" is just propaganda from the same team that brought us the hundreds of new versions. The text that underlies them is corrupt. The one the KJV translators used had been used by the church for 1530 years (according to the OTHER guys even) and was CHOSEN all those centuries over the one that now dominates the translations.
An Authorized English Translation would be one appointed by a church body, appointing scholars who at least believe in what they are translating.
Yes, what's that book about the Greek, Z, I'd like to know about it.
But it has to be recognized that we're not just talking about poor translation -- which we are, to the tune of 36,000 unnecessary nuisance changes in the English text -- we're also talking about DIFFERENT Greek texts.
I noticed Pinky's comment one day here, and I've been by her blog, but I haven't left a comment yet. Yes, she will like Carmi. He is just the neatest person.
CJ....I think it's wonderful to put aside a day MINDFUL of resting in Him. Very nice to remember that every day, but I fear most of us don't, not every single day.
I will try to get you the information on the book; it was given to a friend and I'll email her asking for the title today.
Bev..he REALLY seems like a terrific person. I love the writing as much as the photos! (So's Pinky, but don't tell her; I'd hate to let it get to her head!!) (ya, that's YOU, pinky!)
Wordsmith, we haven't had a real hot summer yet, have we! SB was great every day but Thursday when the sun didn't REALLY get bright and shiny..but we had shopping to do, so that was fine!
Pris...FOOD is the key! You do know me!!
I know it's Sunday and I've already broken the peace here, my apologies, but now I have a request of the knowledgeable politics watchers here. I just passed on a bulk mailing of a supposed comparison of the voting record of Obama vs. McCain, not really looking at it, and my (liberal) daughter just wrote me that it's wrong. There are lots of comparisons to be found online but I don't know which are most trustworthy. Could someone here point me to their TRUE record?
Thank you.
Yep, CJ, but ALL of it is "informed opinion" and "hearsay evidence" at best.
Who among us can read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic with the same ease and familiarity as the ancients, and who among us would not bring our own unconscious biases into our reading of the earliest texts, assuming we could?
You know me pretty well, CJ. I am definitely a "heretic" by the standards you want to uphold, but am by no means disrespectful of points of view other than my own, and am as open to knew knowledge and insights as I would wish others to be.
The original King James Version dates from when–––the early 1600's? I have never seen a copy of it. I'm sure the language would be closer to the language of Shakespeare than anything else, but that's mere conjecture. I'd be interested in looking at it for sure.
Of one thing I am quite sure and that is we have nothing extant written in the hand of Moses, and Christ never wrote a word–––or if He did, nothing that has survived.
This in no way defames the Scriptures or attempts to see them as irrelevant, but we've learned a great deal in the last two thousand years, and all of it is not irrelevant to a better understanding of ultimate Truth, which IS Almighty God.
~ FreeThinke
Sigh...I haven't swam in such a long time, and that pool looks so inviting :)
FT, what kept alive the words was church services which for 2000 years have said the same thing every single Sunday. The Orthodox churches of Armenia, Greece, etc., repeated, repeated, repeated..the words are the same as the first Armenians who heard them from Thaddeus and Bartholomew, 2 of Jesus' disciples.
gorgeous, Z.
It made me take a deep, cleansing breath.
now, where's that yoga DVD of mine?
;-)
Elbro; there's a book which shows the Greek for the words which are most mischaracterized by most of the versions. I'm thinking about getting it. Want the title, per chance?
I have a Strong's concordance with Greek and Hebrew Lexicon, as well as other helps which I find very useful.
I think the difference between
Thou shalt not murder
and
Thou shalt not kill
isn't minor
I only meant that there are some who seem to think that the KJV is the only translation that can be used. Some of these are cults for e.g. the LDS church as well as the sects of the Church of Christ.
(when I use the word cult here I'm referring to churches who do not follow orthodox Christianity)
I find this amusing considering they don't beg for an authorized version of say one in Spanish or Thai.
FT: Grammar is grammar, whether it's Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I have a book on basic Greek grammar that I have found a great help as well as the lexicon.
Doesn't make me a scholar by any means but reading a bunch of 'thees' and 'thous' while beautiful, is as cj said a translation.
Who among us can read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic with the same ease and familiarity as the ancients, and who among us would not bring our own unconscious biases into our reading of the earliest texts, assuming we could?
2 Timothy 2:15 (King James Version)
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
This is why we should study in the original languages to help us forego those bias's.
Something as simple as the word love:
there is only word one in English and 3 in the old Greek.
phileo
agape
eros
Of one thing I am quite sure and that is we have nothing extant written in the hand of Moses, and Christ never wrote a word–––or if He did, nothing that has survived.
Do you doubt the words of Aristotle FT?
Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
CJ...your charge of multiplicity is answered here
an excerpt:
When manuscripts differ from each other, one needs a methodology to determine which reading to include in the Greek text and in any translation derived from that Greek text. Given the fact that no two handwritten Greek manuscripts read exactly the same, everyone who engages in creating printed editions of the Greek text or translations into modern languages must struggle with textual diversity. Erasmus did so, the KJV translators did so, and modern scholars engage in the same task. The King James Version is just as much a result of this process of study and examination as any modern text, and those who assert it is somehow above such "human" activities are simply ignoring the facts of history. If KJV Only advocates wish to say that all the decisions made by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators were perfect, they need to explain why. Simply assuming this wont do.
Most of the textual differences that have attracted charges of "corruption" by KJV Only advocates come from the fact that modern textual scholars believe that certain text types carry more weight in determining a reading than others. That is, rather than simply counting manuscripts to see which reading has more manuscripts on its side, scholars recognize that other factors must be considered. Most agree that the Byzantine text type, as a whole, is a later form of the text, while the Alexandrian text type generally represents an earlier form. Since the TR, and therefore the KJV, represents a Byzantine form, modern texts will differ at places from the KJV where scholars determine that the KJVs reading comes from a later, rather than earlier, time.
CJ,
So the King James never was updated as planned, but I can't for the life of me see why your reading should be preferred to the KJV standard:
Translations vary in purpose and style (as well as, of course, in quality). Some translations are written so that children and others with a limited vocabulary can easily understand them — others are written for serious adult students of the Bible. Some are fairly literal (word-forward translations), while others are very loose paraphrases.
And no you don’t have to know the original languages to be able to tell the difference. You see, most translations really do have their place.
Wow, it looks like little Mediterranean chalet. Hope you're enjoying yourself, z.
Nobody gave me the Truth about Obama and McCain's record to answer my daughter with. Waaaaa.
About the King James, that sure got a lot of attention. I don't want to go on and on about it here so I'll try to make a few brief points. However, I'm also trying mightily to get my point of view worked out and spelled out at my own blog if anybody is interested. It's still in the formative stages but I'm quite willing to try to deal with whatever debate anyone wants to throw at me. It would probably sharpen my study skills.
FT, the original King James of 1611 is in gothic style print and is available but nobody I know recommends it. It had many printer's errors and archaic spellings, so people who are really up on this recommend later editions, particularly the Cambridge 1869 if I have that right. The language itself hasn't changed in these editions -- it's no more or less "Shakespearean" than it was in the original.
There is a science to translating the Bible and they have so many thousands of manuscripts of it in every language including Greek, the majority from the 10th century as I recall but even some going back to the 2nd century, that they really can reconstruct the originals with a great degree of confidence. There is really no controversy about this. What there IS controversy about is what tradition of texts is used for the translation because there are some that are corrupt.
The fact that Jesus wrote nothing has important meaning, FT: God inspires His chosen men to write His word, in both testaments. There is no reason to doubt that the apostles got it right. Thousands of quite ancient manuscripts have Him saying the same things He says in our Bibles.
EB, I'm not a King-James-Only advocate of the sort you have in mind, and in fact I find their arguments get in the way of what is really important about this. I'm not thinking of the cultists but particularly fundamental Baptists who get all wrapped up in the notion that the English language of the 1611 AV was inspired by God. Oy.
I believe there are changes that need to be made in the KJV still, but I don't think they are anywhere near as serious as you seem to think. Some words have completely lost meaning to us now, and we use some of the same words they used but with different connotations, and that can be confusing to people, so updating seems to me to be a good idea. But I really don't think there is anything substantive that needs to be changed.
I'm well aware of the differences in the underlying texts, but from my study I've concluded that the texts used by the King James translators are the ones to trust, and I also trust their scholarship far more than modern scholars. Some of them had studied the ancient languages since childhood. They were experts in a way scholars now can hardly claim to be. They were also God-fearing born-again men, which canNOT be said of the translators of 1881.
The texts that came into use under Westcott and Hort in 1881 were already known to be corrupt, as testified by their own colleagues and contemporaries (Burgon and Scrivener in particular but also a Bishop Wordsworth found their texts and translation to be spurious), yet they are now the basis for all our modern versions. There's plenty of evidence for this.
James White is an apologist for the new versions. He spends most of his time arguing with the King James Only crowd which is really a red herring, and when it comes to the underlying texts he merely asserts the opinion of the scholars who support the new versions, really begging the question. Just about everybody trusts James White, but James White is NOT trustworthy.
I don't accept that we need all these translations at all. Absolutely not. They have done nothing but bring chaos into the church.
I went to a different church 2 Sundays ago to hear a professor give the 'sermon'...which was fantastic.
The thing that did not strike me personally as fantastic was the Biblical scripture he read from...SO modern that I felt "this can't be the word of God!" It put me off so badly hearing it in a kind of vernacular!
While I could still hear the MEANING behind the simple language, it struck me as cold and sad!!
Still, it's hard for me to plough through the THEES and THOUS and, while I'm sure there's better than the NIV, and easier than the KJV, I do study the NIV.
I detest the word APOLOGETICS because its true meaning is forming apologies and that's NOT what Christians are doing when they discuss apologetics!!!
CJ and ELBRO, I'm wondering; I feel that the tiny contradictions in the Gospel, especially, are MORE of a positive for apologetics than a negative. It makes it so much less believable that Constantine invented all of this and none of it's really true...if someone were to do this as a 'ruse', wouldn't one present the stories of Christ's birth and miracles EXACTLY the same in each gospel so as to preempt any questions? I think so. I look at that AS an apologetic...would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for the extremely civil and enlightening conversation. I love learning from those with SO much more info than I have!!
I don't seriously think there are exceptional issues with the KJV the fact that people think the KJV is somehow more authoratative than other translations I find somewhat amusing. Too often debates over translations degenerate into the complete discrediting of one, and unconditional acceptance of another, elevating the latter to a near-inspired status. This is an uneducated and dishonest stance to take. All translations have their pros and their cons, and unique translational errors. No translation is without flaw, or should be accepted without question. Every translation must be evaluated critically and individually based on the available evidence. I too don't think any one translator was more or less inspired than any other.
For example:
Assuming one is a Majority Test person:
There are a number of New Testament passages in the AV which do not appear in any of the more than 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts available today. This is due primarily to the fact that the Greek New Testaments used by the translators of the AV contained numerous words and passages drawn from the Vulgate, a Catholic Latin translation that even Catholics no longer use. These Latin passages were translated back into Greek, resulting in many errors.
The following is a list of some terms and passages in the AV which are found in no Greek manuscripts at all.
1.Acts 9: 5,6: "..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him…" (Erasmus honestly admitted in the notes accompanying his Greek NT that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and included them in his GNT because they were in the Vulgate.)
2. Col. 1:14: "..through his blood.."
3. Rev. 5:14: "..him that liveth for ever and ever."
4. Rev. 17:4: "..full of abominations and filthiness.." The Greek term for "filthiness" (ajkaqavrthto") used in this verse in the KJV, does not exist in the Greek language.
The references below resulted from Erasmus back-translating from the Latin Vulgate into Greek, because the final page of the copy of Revelation he was using was missing.
5. Rev. 22: 16: "... the bright and morning star." The term for "morning star" (ojrqrinov") appears in none of the Greek manuscripts.
6. Rev. 22:19: "..book of life.." In fact, the Greek has "..tree of life.." (Gk. xuvlou th'" zwh'")
7. Rev. 22: 17: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come… " Both of the Greek terms for "come," and the term for "let him… come," do not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts. However, this is of no practical importance since the terms that are in the Greek (jjjejrcou and ejrcevsqw, respectively) carry the same meaning.
8. Rev. 22:18: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book… " The italicized words are to be found in no Greek manuscript. However, as in the preceding example, the meaning is not materially altered by the terms that are in the Greek.
9. Rev. 22:19: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Again, the italicized terms are those that appear in none of the Greek manuscripts. As with the preceding two examples, the correct Greek terms mean pretty much the same things–with the exception of the term "book," in the "book of life" (in bold letters). This should read, "tree of life." There is not a single Greek manuscript that supports the KJV reading.
10. Rev. 22:21: This should read, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all," not "…be with you all." This is a minor variation, but the purpose is to demonstrate that the KJV does contain errors which can be clearly demonstrated. It is a good translation, but there are better.
A few passages not appearing in any of the better Greek manuscripts:
1. Mt.6:13: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever"
2. Luke 17:9: "I trow not"
3. Rom.8:1: "who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit"
4. Eph.3:14: "of our Lord Jesus Christ"
5.Heb.11:13: "and were persuaded of them"
6. 1 Jn.4:19: "him"
7. 1 Jn.5:7b-8a: "… in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth… "
Item #7, above, deserves more extensive consideration.
When Erasmus compiled his Greek New Testament for Johann Froben in 1515, he neglected to include the above passage. A firestorm of protest erupted, led by a man called Stunica, who had been one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot. Latin versions had included it and it was widely accepted as part of the approved New Testament text. Erasmus responded that he left the passage out because it did not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts available to him, but that he would include it in future editions of his Greek New Testament if a Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.
I'm for a more balanced approach.
There is no doctrine in all of orthodox historic Christianity, which you and I hold to dearly, that is removed from the Bible because of any of the textual variants.
You said that Westcott & Hort worked on the Bible version of 1881. Let's be specific. Westcott & Hort worked on the English Revised Version of 1885. By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, embrace all of the Westcott & Hort theory of textual criticism.
The KJV is good, but there are better. And by "better" is meant that there are translations that come closer to accurately expressing, in contemporary English, what the original authors of the Bible wrote
No translation lasts forever, and this is as true for the KJV as it was for the Wycliff Version, the Bishops' Bible, or the Geneva Bible. It will also be true for reputable contemporary translations if their editors cease to periodically revise them. Language eventually changes, and it becomes necessary to produce translations that reflect that change. Older and better ancient biblical manuscripts are discovered. Techniques for examining and assessing the relative reliability of the manuscripts improve, providing biblical-language scholars with improved means of making accurate text-critical decisions.
The AV long ago became antiquated, but due to outcries against change by those who felt that new translations were somehow offensive to God, public acceptance of new and better versions was long delayed. That is to say, new translations were produced, but they usually failed to gain a foothold.
BTW I use a NKJV
As far as James White is concerned he hold brilliant debates with Muslims and Mormons and I find his work quite good.
While I find your opinion valuable I simply don't think the different translations create much controversy at all. It's the KJV only folks who believe there is a confict. The appeal to special expertism by some rather than others really falls flat.
I think James White's presentation is interesting.
Elbro, you are simply accepting the current judgment about what constitutes the "better" texts, but this is what at last half of the controversy is about. The texts they call better are the same ones that Burgon and Scrivener denounced as so abominably corrupt that the entire church for centuries had rejected them.
I know Erasmus' translation is complained about a lot and here it perhaps mostly comes down to whom we decide to trust. I trust the KJV translators who were quite aware of all the Greek options and quite capable of judging Erasmus' text for themselves. I also trust them to have chosen the BEST readings throughout to put into English, even if sometimes it's a minority reading that derives from only one manuscript. I give them that much credit and I don't give modern publishing companies that much credit, who make the decisions today. The modern Bibles also have parts that are based on minority readings, there is nothing wrong with that in principle (and they are doing it from corrupted texts as well).
If it's a matter of whom to trust to have made the decisions, I trust the believing KJV translators over the liberal Westcott and Hort who preferred the corrupted manuscripts, and over the decisions made by publishers. The KJV was done by 47 men of much higher scholarship and Christian belief than anything done since. They compared their work with each other to get it right. They retained 95% of the Tyndale after comparing it with dozens of other Bibles including those in Greek and other languages. The Bible is the word of God. It should not be handled by profane hands.
Besides this, if you do a comparison of verses I don't know how you can avoid seeing that the translational choices in the new versions reflect no justifiable change from the KJV. Compare half a dozen translations on, say, Psalm 91. I did this at my blog and the more I saw the absolutely meaningless differences in wording the madder I got at the cavalier way the versions deal with God's word and the disrespect they show to the church that ought to be able to depend on a uniform translation for the sake of congregational unison reading and memorization if nothing else. Instead you can't follow along without having to translate as you go when the pastor or elders read from one of the dozen other translations people in a given congregation choose for themselves.
The original revised version of 1881 made 36,000 changes ALTHOUGH Westcott and Hort were assigned by the church body that hired them to make none but absolutely essential changes in the text and to rely on the same underlying texts, and since then each version multiplies the changes in order to qualify for copyright, although the changes are just nuisance changes and contribute nothing to improved clarity.
W&H violated their trust by introducing the corrupted texts and by making thousands of willynilly changes that were far from an improvement in the meaning. This is recognized and documented by contemporaries, especially Dean J W Burgon. The whole thing was a mutilation of the Bible, not the minor revision it was intended to be and not a true translation.
Yes, you can find the major doctrines of Christianity in all the Bibles, in some verses at least, despite the fact that they have been left out of other verses, and I don't doubt that God uses them to save and teach people, despite the fact that they are NOT His word in totality.
EB, I'm unable to use your link for some reason. Maybe you could fix it?
James White makes good SECONDARY points by the way, about how translations are done and so on, the nuts and bolts of textual criticism. I also think for the most part he's right in his criticism of the KJ-only crowd. Where he's untrustworthy is on judging the quality of the Greek manuscripts and in not noticing the madness of all the meaningless changes that have been made from modern version to modern version.
If you have any interest, EB, here's one of my first posts in which I compare various versions on Psalm 91:
http://watchpraystand.blogspot.com/2008/07/famine-of-hearing-word-of-lord-pt-2.html
I know Erasmus' translation is complained about a lot and here it perhaps mostly comes down to whom we decide to trust.
Perhaps.
If it's a matter of whom to trust to have made the decisions, I trust the believing KJV translators over the liberal Westcott and Hort who preferred the corrupted manuscripts, and over the decisions made by publishers.
Perhaps you missed this in my previous comment:
By the way, few people today, believers or unbelievers, embrace all of the Westcott & Hort theory of textual criticism.
I did this at my blog and the more I saw the absolutely meaningless differences in wording the madder I got at the cavalier way the versions deal with God's word
Then I don't see the rub
and the disrespect they show to the church that ought to be able to depend on a uniform translation for the sake of congregational unison reading and memorization if nothing else.
This is circular reasoning. The KJV is not THE word of God, it is a translation. While I understand the sentimental value that you might place on the way it sounds when you recite it from memory...it doesn't make it any more authoritative
Instead you can't follow along without having to translate as you go when the pastor or elders read from one of the dozen other translations people in a given congregation choose for themselves.
Again this is a nice thing to do...(our Pastor puts it on overhead) it just that 'a nice thing to do'
The original revised version of 1881 made 36,000 changes ALTHOUGH Westcott and Hort were assigned by the church body that hired them to make none but absolutely essential changes in the text and to rely on the same underlying texts, and since then each version multiplies the changes in order to qualify for copyright, although the changes are just nuisance changes and contribute nothing to improved clarity.
This sounds like a personal preference issue, rather than something to be so dogmatic about.
Yes, you can find the major doctrines of Christianity in all the Bibles, in some verses at least, despite the fact that they have been left out of other verses, and I don't doubt that God uses them to save and teach people, despite the fact that they are NOT His word in totality.
Again I'll reiterate the KJV is not THE word of God, it is a translation. There are omissions and additions to it, that include side notes and omissions.
The point, Elbro is that whether the KJV is THE word of God or not, we SHOULD HAVE a translation in English that has that status.
Yes I'm aware that today Westcott and Hort are not accepted totally, but the fact of the matter is that with only the most minor differences, ALL the modern versions are based on their corrupt texts and follow their mangling of the English.
If you will do the comparisons I suggest I am sure that you will see that they really ARE just nuisance changes, just change for change's sake.
I understand the reasons for wanting to use the 'Majority' text but I believe the balanced view expressed by John Macarthur on the link I provided a good one.
both links worked for me. One of them is a power point presentation.
The 'balanced' view link will take you to a John Macarthur site. Is that the one that isn't working.
but why change just for change sake, cj??
(I almost typed your real name..yikes!)
To make money with a new publication? Or to maybe make it more accessible.
My point, tho I'm by far not equipped to discuss with you and Elbro this subject, sadly, would be that just getting people reading scripture at ALL is important enough to warrant a more 'accessible' language use.
I imagine you'd probably suggest it's not right to 'just get people reading' if the translation isn't 'true' but from reading your discussion here, one wonders if 'getting close' or 'essentially capturing' the meaning isn't enough?
Can I be really stupid and ask what percentage of the NIV, for instance, you feel is wrong enough to change back for honesty/correct characterization sake?
The point, Elbro is that whether the KJV is THE word of God or not, we SHOULD HAVE a translation in English that has that status.
Not possible.
If you will do the comparisons I suggest I am sure that you will see that they really ARE just nuisance changes, just change for change's sake.
I have done comparisons, my faith doesn't rest on a specific translation. Yet I see the benefit to even paraphrases.
You did see this comment from me:
All translations have their pros and their cons, and unique translational errors. No translation is without flaw, or should be accepted without question. Every translation must be evaluated critically and individually based on the available evidence.
I haven't ignored the issue that all translations have problems.
Please do the comparisons or go read those I made at my blog that I linked for you. This is NOT a matter of merely "different translations" and their problems. This is truly a matter of change for change's sake.
That's the reason then. For some reason I can't get power point.
Z, I could track down the discussions of the NIV for you but I haven't even gotten that far with my blog. I know the NIV is considered by many to be one of the very worst.
This is a HUGE topic, unfortunately. It's a highly technical topic for starters and I'll never master it all, I just have to be careful not to make gross errors. Beyond that, the material out there is overwhelming.
But there are plenty of sites that will show you the problems with each of the translations. If I can dig one up for you I will.
Sure, I guess you can say that getting anyone reading any Bible at all is better than nothing, but it's just not right that choosing a Bible has been put in the hands of ordinary Christians these days, trusting in who knows what. Pastors too, with a couple of years of Greek under their belts, actually take on the job of translating the text themselves, judging whether they will accept or not accept a particular reading. It just should not be that way. We should be able to trust that God has appointed men who trust in Him above all and who have the necessary expertise to have made these decisions for us and given us a God-guided God-appointed God-sanctioned translation of His word. We should not have to make them ourselves. There is something very very wrong with this picture.
CJ: The point, Elbro is that whether the KJV is THE word of God or not, we SHOULD HAVE a translation in English that has that status.
EB: Not possible.
Well, it WAS possible for 250 years before the 1881 disaster occurred, EB. The King James did eventually displace the earlier translations and became THE authorized version for English-speaking people.
CJ: If you will do the comparisons I suggest I am sure that you will see that they really ARE just nuisance changes, just change for change's sake.
EB: I have done comparisons, my faith doesn't rest on a specific translation. Yet I see the benefit to even paraphrases.
The problem is that WE shouldn't have this power, to decide whether or not there is "benefit to even paraphrases." This should be the decision of God-soaked men of the highest scholarship appointed by a valid church body.
But Westcott and Hort weren't even believers, they did not believe in many of the basics of the Christian faith, in fact they hated the KJV, and their profane product has been the staple of the churches for half a century now.
Although I can't see the Power Point presentation, I do generally appreciate John MacArthur, but he's not a Greek scholar either and has no authority for making judgments on this subject.
Please do the comparisons or go read those I made at my blog that I linked for you. This is NOT a matter of merely "different translations" and their problems. This is truly a matter of change for change's sake.
If that is the case then you will understand that it cuts both ways. For e.g....problems with the AV vs the manuscripts.
The English translation is just that an English translation.
There were manuscripts that were not even available for the AV translation.
James White points out in the power point (just one example) that these were not merely changes for the sake of changes but correction in the translation.
No translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version.
Bruce Metzger writes,
So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. (The Text of the New Testament, p. 106)
The link I left you before answers your charge of corruption:
an excerpt:
King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.
Well, it WAS possible for 250 years before the 1881 disaster occurred, EB. The King James did eventually displace the earlier translations and became THE authorized version for English-speaking people.
did they have a choice? did they have the benefit of all the manuscripts that we have today?
You're being superstitious here....you know the Muslims won't even let an infidel touch the Koran...
Although I can't see the Power Point presentation, I do generally appreciate John MacArthur, but he's not a Greek scholar either and has no authority for making judgments on this subject.
Well he may not be a Greek scholar but I'm sure you'll understand if I think question your Greek credentials.
The Power Point was from James White. The balance approach that I happen to think is the correct one is the one from John Macarthur.
BTW the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position.
Apparently Erasmus had his own problems with Greek, which is why he had to borrow from the Latin and create his own Greek version.
from Equip.org
The claim that modern Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) are based upon "corrupt" editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts is a common argument of King James Only advocates. Believers who encounter the claims of individuals such as Peter Ruckman,2 Samuel Gipp,3 Gail Riplinger,4 or D. A. Waite5 will often hear that while the King James Version (KJV) is based upon "God honoring manuscripts," the modern translations are based upon only a handful of heretical, corrupt manuscripts.6 They allege that these manuscripts can be linked to every kind of heretical belief, even when those beliefs are contradictory to one another. One will find KJV Only advocates7 linking these manuscripts to Arianism, Gnosticism, liberalism, and Roman Catholicism. These manuscripts allegedly deny salvation by grace through faith, the resurrection of Christ, and the existence of hell, and affirm any number of other heresies and errors. Therefore, since nearly all modern translations8 are based upon these "corrupt" manuscripts, the translations are also corrupt and should be rejected by all "Bible believers."
more from Equip.org
WHAT IS "CORRUPT"?
The charge of "corrupt manuscripts," while often made, is far less often defined. What does the term mean? Textual critics use the term to refer to any variation from the original text. Hence, spelling the name of the pool in John 5:2 Bethzatha rather than Bethesda would be called a "corruption" of the text, though such a difference is hardly relevant to the meaning of the text. This is why textual scholar Bruce Metzger can title a work on the subject, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.
KJV Only advocates, however, do not use the term in this way. Most often they use it to communicate the idea of specific, purposeful, doctrinal corruption or perversion. Any variation from the chosen standard (the KJV) is considered a "corruption." And there are many such variations. But does this make modern texts "corrupt"? Certainly not.
In point of fact, if we make the most primitive form of the NT text the standard, the Byzantine text type (and hence the KJV itself) shows evidence of having the largest number of scribal errors, additions, and expansions, and hence would be, in the most accurate use of the term, the most "corrupt" form of text. It all depends on what one defines as the "chosen standard," for the standard determines which texts end up labeled "corrupt."
Textual variations exist. This is a fact everyone must deal with, including every KJV Only advocate who wishes to be honest with history and with himself or herself. But why are there variations? And does the presence of variations make a manuscript "corrupt"?
One of the most important advances in our knowledge of the Greek manuscripts since the days of King James comes from the area of scribal habits. We are able to recognize much more clearly now what kinds of errors people are liable to make when they are hand-copying a manuscript. The largest portion of textual variants in the NT comes from simple scribal errors, not from purposeful "corruption" of the text for theological reasons. For example, even modern writers will engage in the error of homoeoteleuton — that is, "similar endings." When copying a sentence, people often skip a word or phrase due to a similar ending appearing later in the line or on the next line. It is obvious that this took place in James 4:12a in the later Byzantine manuscripts. While the earlier texts read, "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, " the majority of texts simply have, "There is only one Lawgiver," the term "and Judge" being deleted. The Greek term for lawgiver is nomothetes, and the word for judge is krites. Notice that both terms end in the same three-letter cluster, tes. A scribe, having written the first term and returning his eyes to his original text, simply caught the second appearance of the letter cluster and mistook it for the first. Not realizing this oversight, the scribe continued on, thereby inadvertently deleting the term "judge."
The same type of error is found at 1 John 3:1, where modern translations (based on the earliest texts) read,
". . .that we might be called the children of God, and we are!"
The later texts (on which the KJV is based) have simply, "that we might be called the children of God."
Similar endings are again found in the Greek, the letter cluster men this time causing the problem. A scribe simply skipped the small phrase "and we are," and this reading became the reading of the majority of Greek texts.
We can identify many more examples of simple scribal error in the texts of the NT. The important thing to note is that such errors do not require one to believe in any grand conspiracy theories, nor must one search for some "hidden meaning" behind the variant itself. The Byzantine scribes who did not have the reference to God as judge were not denying that He is just that, nor were they denying 1 Johns statement that we are the children of God right now by faith in Christ. Yet KJV Only materials are filled with this kind of reverse argumentation.14
Another kind of "corruption" of the NT text was purposeful. (Yes, there are purposeful corruptions in NT manuscripts.) Almost always these changes are toward what would be called "orthodoxy," not away from it. Most often these corruptions come from scribes who were attempting to "help out" the biblical text. Over and over again, for example, one will find scribes trying to harmonize the parallel accounts of events in the Gospels. There was a desire to make Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the same thing in the same words.
A quick glance at a parallel Greek text of the Gospels provides multiple examples on almost every page. One such example will suffice. In Luke 9:23Luke recorded the Lord saying that the disciple must take up his cross daily and follow Him. Since Matthew and Mark did not include the term "daily," a large portion of later manuscripts "harmonized" the passage by deleting the phrase from Luke.
Should someone ask, "But how do you know someone didnt add it to Luke?" we must first point out that the reading is found in the most ancient manuscripts of Luke. Furthermore, why would a scribe try to make Luke different than Matthew or Mark? The tendency we find in the texts is to make things the same, not different. Those who have spent time in the text of the NT know the truth of this rule of thumb: "The original reading is most likely the one that best explains how the others arose." If one can easily determine how a particular reading could give rise to the others, that reading gets the weight of the internal evidence on its side. One can then factor in the manuscript evidence so that a final decision can be made.16
The same thing happens in the Pauline Epistles that bear similarity to one another, such as Ephesians and Colossians. One of the most famous instances of harmonization is found at Colossians 1:14. KJV Only advocates refer to this passage with great frequency. In a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast a caller attacked the NIV for "taking out the blood at Colossians 1:14." In Salt Lake City I encountered a KJV Only advocate who was passing out tracts outside the Mormon temple and who referred to the NIV as the "bloodless Bible," again citing this passage. When one compares the KJV with modern translations at this point, it certainly seems like there is a problem.
KJV
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
NASB
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NIV
in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Where is the phrase "through his blood"? Here we have another example of how parallel passages can cause scribes to "harmonize." Note the source of the phrase in the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7:
KJV
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
NASB
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
NIV
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of Gods grace
The phrase "through his blood" in Ephesians 1:7 is found immediately after "in whom we have redemption." Hence, later scribes, possibly inadvertently, inserted the phrase in Colossians as well. In point of fact, the KJVs reading at Colossians 1:14 is the minority reading based upon only a few comparatively late manuscripts. It should be emphasized that all the modern translations contain the phrase at Ephesians 1:7. Why? Because they are seeking solely to translate the Greek text, and the Greek text the best Greek text no matter how one slices it has this reading. There is no conspiracy, no cut-and-snip methodology occurring in these reputable translations.
ALLEGED DOCTRINAL "CORRUPTIONS"
Are modern translations "doctrinally corrupt"? Some are. The New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is certainly corrupt doctrinally and textually as well.17 Some translations give evidence of rank liberalism or a less-than-orthodox view of Scripture. But the reputable, scholarly translations used regularly by believers such as the NASB and the NIV are most certainly not doctrinally corrupt.
The textual variant at John 6:47 helps us demonstrate that the broad spectrum of passages most often cited by KJV Only advocates do not, upon close examination, support their charges of doctrinal corruption. Dr. D. A. Waite of The Bible for Today alleges just such corruption in his book Defending the King James Bible. He alleges a "SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION" (emphasis in original)18 in modern texts at John 6:47. Note the comparison:
KJV
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Modern Translations (here NASB)
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
Modern translations do not contain the phrase "on me" at this verse, causing Dr. Waite to comment, "To make salvation only a matter of believing rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse, believing on Me, is truly ANOTHER GOSPEL! If you were trying to lead someone to Christ with the NIV or NASV, using this verse, they could believe in anything and still have everlasting life whether in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny, in the Tooth Fairy, in Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, or in any of the false world religions!" (emphasis in original).19
Accusations of preaching "another gospel" are quite strong. But does the accusation have merit? Not at all. The NASB and NIV are brimming with the phrase "believe in me." Just a few verses before John 6:47 (in v. 35), the NASB reads, "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" (emphasis added). And in the immediate context of John 6, v.40 reads, "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (emphasis added). Other places in John where the phrase appears in modern translations include John 7:38, 11:25-26, 12:44, and 46. If the modern translations are trying to preach "another gospel," why do they include all these references that contradict this "other gospel"? Whats more, how do they explain the many places where the KJV has the simple phrase "believe," such as at Mark 9:23 and Romans 1:16 and 10:4? Is the KJV guilty of teaching "another gospel" because it does not have the specific phrase "in Him" or "in Christ" at these places? Of course not.
As we have seen all along, the modern translations are simply translating the text before them, and in this case the phrase "in me" is not found in the most ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Later scribes most probably inadvertently harmonized the phrase "believe" with the more common "believe in me," resulting in the KJV reading. There is no perversion here. Instead, this is one of literally hundreds of examples that could be presented from the text of the Gospels that show the tendency of scribes to utilize the most common way of saying things, often resulting in this kind of harmonization. Anyone who thinks that the lack of the term "in me" at John 6:47 somehow alters the gospel itself has an extremely strained view of how one determines the gospel message from the text of Scripture.
A little patience and a little study will reward the diligent student with answers to all of those passages cited by KJV Only advocates regarding alleged doctrinal "corruption." In each case the reputable modern translations will be cleared of the charge.
Now you wouldn't suggest a Spanish translation made from the KJV would you?
"Corrupt" means written over a zillion times by dozens of copyists for one thing, and rejected by the church as coming from a spurious source for another. The corrupt texts were unpopular. The Byzantine texts were preferred, hence copied thousands of times. That is why there are so many of them, but very few very old copies of the corrupt ones.
Actually, the KJV does make the best basis for translation into foreign languages as I understand it, and in Spanish I believe there is one that is based on it. Why would you want to make a translation from an inferior English translation?
If you will make the comparisons you cannot avoid the judgment that the vast majority of them could only be change for change's sake, no matter what James White says.
Also I haven't said anything about "intentional" doctrinal corruptions although that is a possibility. All I have said is that the Byzantine texts have been trusted by the church for good reason while the Alexandrian were scorned until Westcott and Hort made a fetish out of them.
Yes the KJV is "just a translation" but it is one that was done under the right authority by the right men, which cannot be said about anything from W&H or based on their work.
Bruce Metzger shouldn't be trusted for much of anything. He forward-dates most of the OT books, such as Daniel for instance, because he doesn't believe in prophecy, or in anything supernatural. He's typical of the modern breed. They have no business dealing with God's word at all.
He is wrong about the manuscripts. What they call "late" were really the trusted traditional text for 1500 years and this much is a fact declared by no less than Hort himself. The Byzantines are THE trustworthy texts and Metzger and company are simply continuing the fiction of the superiority of the corrupt Alexandrian texts.
As I said earlier, at some point it may come down to who you are going to trust. The new versions defenders simply accept the establishment line. They have no spiritual discernment and in many cases they've never even read Burgon or Scrivener.
It's easy to ridicule the KJO camp, EB, there's no need to continue that with me. I agree with you about them.
There is no need to give me quotes like this one:
King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.
I have already said that I know the basic doctrines are findable in the modern versions.
But many doctrinally powerful verses HAVE BEEN expunged from many familiar verses although they are left intact in others. Yes, expunged from. White and company are absolutely wrong that the left- out ones were really additions in the Byzantine texts.
I don't know any Greek at all, but Dean Burgon did and his book is a masterpiece of dismantling of Westcott and Hort's credentials. He calls their Greek "schoolboy" level and their rendering of the English "pedantic" and worse. i would be surprised if John MacArthur even heard of Burgon. Like other pastors today he simply accepts the arguments of the establishment.
Well, you've taught me what a wall has been built up in protection of the inferior manuscripts and indefensible changes in the translation that were so sneakily introduced by Westcott and Hort.
I recommend that you read Dean Burgon's book.
Yes, even the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars can be wrong. They're all depending on each other for their information after all.
did they have a choice? did they have the benefit of all the manuscripts that we have today?
What do you really know about those manuscripts? From what I've read they all fit into one textual tradition or another that have already been known for the history of the church, and were known to Erasmus and to the KJV translators.
Maybe this will improve my grammar:
What do you really know about those manuscripts? From what I've read they all fit into one textual tradition or another, traditions that have been known for the history of the church, and were known to Erasmus and to the KJV translators.
Here's a site that has some of the best resources. I don't agree with everything he says but his material is definitely a cut above the usual King James Only group.
On the lower left margin of this page http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/index.html
are links to online excerpts of Burgon's book that I keep recommending as well as some other good reading. Mauro's book is also well worth reading, linked on the top left margin.
The problem is that WE shouldn't have this power, to decide whether or not there is "benefit to even paraphrases." This should be the decision of God-soaked men of the highest scholarship appointed by a valid church body.
Define God soaked? Quit with the Christianeze...it doesn't fly with me.
The Bible says we're all priests and there is but one person between us and God. If you wish to return to the days of the Catholic Church then by all means go ahead. I for one choose not to turn my baloney detector off for the sake of any 'learned' men. In my church the pastor is a head elder who is chosen by the congregation and not by some decree made by a hierarchy.
Are you a Roman Catholic?
"Corrupt" means written over a zillion times by dozens of copyists for one thing, (you mean like Erasmus' sidenotes that were incorporated into scripture) and rejected by the church as coming from a spurious source for another. The corrupt texts were unpopular. and unpopular meands 'corrupt?The Byzantine texts were preferred, hence copied thousands of times. That is why there are so many of them, but very few very old copies of the corrupt ones.
I know of the Dean Burgon Society.
Yes, even the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars can be wrong. They're all depending on each other for their information after all.
And you know this because?
Yeah I heard they've all conspired to lead us astray.
Oy
Well, you've taught me what a wall has been built up in protection of the inferior manuscripts and indefensible changes in the translation that were so sneakily introduced by Westcott and Hort.
You haven't made the case that they were corrupted in any meaningful way. You say it was change for the sake of change. Your charge of inferior manuscripts is your assertion based on which expert YOU want to believe.
We've established that no major orthodox Christian belief is in any way affected by the other translations and that these other translations make reasonable corrections to the KJV translation.
The KJV has it's own issues, which you have failed to recognize or glanced over.
You've elevated the KJV to the autographa. Sorry I don't buy it.
I don't know any Greek at all, but Dean Burgon did and his book is a masterpiece of dismantling of Westcott and Hort's credentials. He calls their Greek "schoolboy" level and their rendering of the English "pedantic" and worse. i would be surprised if John MacArthur even heard of Burgon. Like other pastors today he simply accepts the arguments of the establishment.
and I've repeated twice now that most Christian scholars reject much of their textual criticism.
Talk about a wall. The article at Macarthur's site suggested reading Burgon's book and was very amicable towards him.
here's the excerpt:
A second approach is the "Majority-Text only" school. This reasonable approach also promotes the King James Bible. Zane Hodges, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, would be the most qualified supporter. The Dean Burgon Society was recently formed to promote this position. Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville issued the New King James Version under the academic leadership of Dr. Arthur Farstad with this position in mind.
But you would have known that had you read it.
What do you really know about those manuscripts?
I know something about it. There are at least four manuscript families that are widely recognized. They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text and the Byzantine or the Majority Text. Note carefully that the TR, or the Textus Receptus, compromises just a portion of the Byzantine Text and is not the entire family. Also, Westcott & Hort did not develop the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. They merely attempted to recognize certain similarities within a group of manuscripts and account for their existence.
Bruce Metzger shouldn't be trusted for much of anything. He forward-dates most of the OT books, such as Daniel for instance, because he doesn't believe in prophecy, or in anything supernatural. He's typical of the modern breed. They have no business dealing with God's word at all.
I agree. The point was that even he makes the charge of corruption and can do that on as little as a mispelling.
It just should not be that way. We should be able to trust that God has appointed men who trust in Him above all and who have the necessary expertise to have made these decisions for us and given us a God-guided God-appointed God-sanctioned translation of His word. We should not have to make them ourselves. There is something very very wrong with this picture.
Martin Luther thought so too.
from Wikipedia:
The universal priesthood or the priesthood of all believers, as it would come to be known in the present day, is a Christian doctrine believed to be derived from several passages of the New Testament. It is a foundational concept of Protestantism.[1] It is this doctrine that Martin Luther adduces in his 1520 To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in order to dismiss the medieval Christian belief that Christians were to be divided into two classes: "spiritual" and "temporal" or non-spiritual.He put forward the doctrine that all baptized Christians are "priests" and "spiritual" in the sight of God:
That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."[2]
"Corrupt" means written over a zillion times by dozens of copyists for one thing, and rejected by the church as coming from a spurious source for another. The corrupt texts were unpopular. and unpopular meands 'corrupt? The Byzantine texts were preferred, hence copied thousands of times. That is why there are so many of them, but very few very old copies of the corrupt ones.
Popular means correct?
..Corrupt" means written over a zillion times by dozens of copyists for one thing,...
because more copies would mean more copyists and more 'corrupt' copies
and the Alexandrian manuscripts are much earlier, which is why there are some who accept them
from John Macarthur's site:
The balanced position holds that each text type is to be evaluated independently without pre- meditated bias. It also posits that internal and external evidences are to be considered equally. It basically suggests that each textual variant is to be investigated thoroughly and considered on its own merits.
For e.g.
Some suggest that gnosticism prevailed in the 2nd Century and drew the conclusion that because gnosticism prevailed, gnostics altered the older texts. Therefore, the reasoningis that the earliest manuscripts are not reliable. Those assertions will not hold up under investigation. There have been apostates and heretics throughout all of church history. Quite frankly, there is no factual substantiation that Aleph, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus or any of the early papyrii and are really the earliest Greek manuscripts we have, were of gnostic origins and doctored to conform to these heresies
The Byzantine or Majority might have been popular and while this family might be the best family, it is not because the majority of texts available today come from it. Quite honestly, we do not know how many manuscripts have been destroyed and what family they represented. The logic that "the most demands the best" is "non sequitor." If you will read about the discipline of textual criticism in literature other than the Bible where evidence is abundantly available, you will discover that with the greater numbers of copies and the greater passage of time, the more errors there were in the later writings. It is much like passing a message verbally and watching it become distorted as it passes through the greater number of people and over the longer period of time.
Hm. "God-soaked" as far as I know was original with me that one and only I've used it. Just being poetic or something. Sorry you found it offensive.
What it means? Men who really spend a lot of time with God and really believe the Bible. That can't be said for Westcott and Hort or Bruce Metzger for instance.
I believe you are misusing the concept of the priesthood of all believers. That is a spiritual charge we all share but just as we aren't all scientists or artists or politicians, it hardly makes sense to require us all to be translators, expert in Greek or even English for that matter.
And also contrary to what you seem to be saying, the office of pastor/elder is a gift of God, one of the gifts of the Spirit, as are teacher, prophet, evangelist and so on. Surely you know that is Biblical.
I regard the Roman Church as the Antichrist system.
Did I say the scholars were conspiring? No, I did not. You keep quoting the KJ-only people as if I had represented them which I have not done anywhere.
They have NOT rejected MOST of Westcott and Hort at all, merely some of it, and the texts that are used now are predominantly based on theirs. If you've said it twice already I guess you can say it a third time but we aren't going to solve this one without some far more serious investigation than either of us is in a position to do on this blog. You've read one thing, I've read another and that's as far as we can go here I believe.
You haven't made the case that they were corrupted in any meaningful way. You say it was change for the sake of change. Your charge of inferior manuscripts is your assertion based on which expert YOU want to believe.
You are confusing different points here. The corruption of the manuscripts is one point, the willynilly changes in the English translation is another.
I can only point to sources such as Dean Burgon to support the view that the texts used by W&H are corrupt. He says so in no uncertain terms. So does Prebendary Scrivener who was on the same revising committee with W&H.
Change for the sake of change simply describes choices of English words that have no meaningful justification, first many thousands of alterations in the AV of the time done by W&H, then many more done with each subsequent new version that comes out. This is something I believe is observable on any comparison of a number of tests. I think it's obvious, but if you feel you've considered this amply and you disagree, let's drop it.
Why on earth are you so testy by the way? Have I been testy with you? Sorry if so, but really I don't think so.
We've established that no major orthodox Christian belief is in any way affected by the other translations and that these other translations make reasonable corrections to the KJV translation.
We HAVE established the former but we have NOT established the latter. While I believe that some reasonable corrections were needed and MAY have been made in some of the versions, I don't know for sure, and I have a very conservative attitude toward just how much is really needed, but I haven't investigated all that because I don't think it's important. I think top priority is to establish that the new versions are based on corrupt texts and that the vast majority of the changes that were made are unjustifiable. If I haven't proved this to your satisfaction, perhaps I haven't produced enough solid evidence, I'm not sure, I'll just have to continue to work on it at my blog.
The KJV has it's own issues, which you have failed to recognize or glanced over.
A great deal of what is said against the KJV I don't accept but I'm not focusing on that aspect of the problem. The whole point of convening the 1881 revising committee was to make such changes to the KJV, which were supposed to be quite minor. It was not to be a new translation but a minimal revision. That is not what Westcott and Hort did, and I haven't yet found just what changes or kinds of changes they thought might be needed in those days. But obviously the changes that WERE done were way beyond the contract and the requirement. At the time only a few intrepid investigators made the effort to count the changes and declare their judgment of them, one being Burgon. Simply judging from these bare facts it ought to be clear at least that W&H violated their trust and pulled off a massive fraud on the Christian community.
Sorry I didn't read the link to MacArthur, I confused it with the Power Point link, but I AM pretty familiar with his point of view as well as James White's so I wasn't expecting any surprises. However, my apologies if he HAS read Burgon, but that quote you give from his site does not indicate that, merely dutifully lists some names on the other side of the issue. I have no idea if he's really read any of them. See, I do think that if most people who are now supporters of the many modern translations did actually READ Burgon's book they'd HAVE to come to another conclusion. I think his argument is lethal myself. But perhaps I'm naive.
CJ: What do you really know about those manuscripts?
EB: I know something about it. There are at least four manuscript families that are widely recognized.
I believe I was asking you about the manuscripts that you claim the KJV men didn't have access to, whether you know that they really represent an alternative, which you were asserting. Because what I was saying was that they all fall into manuscript traditions that were well known to them, even down through the previous centuries.
They include the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text and the Byzantine or the Majority Text. Note carefully that the TR, or the Textus Receptus, compromises just a portion of the Byzantine Text and is not the entire family. Also, Westcott & Hort did not develop the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. They merely attempted to recognize certain similarities within a group of manuscripts and account for their existence.
Yes, I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, I just wanted to know what proof you had that the KJV translators were deprived of something essential.
However, Burgon for instance thinks the designation of a "Western" tradition, which was the invention of W&H, is just that, an invention, one of their many pieces of fantasy (and that in fact their entire theory is nothing but an exercise of imagination without the slightest actual evidence). I find it hard that MacArthur for one could have read Burgon considering that he judges W&H in these terms throughout.
Oh, and about:
Your charge of inferior manuscripts is your assertion based on which expert YOU want to believe.
No, I was not a defender of the KJV just a few months ago. I was going along with the establishment point of view and the NKJV was my Bible. And I doubt you are willing to say that you "want" to believe the experts you believe either. I do think it's matter of whom we believe in the end, but let's at least be respectful of each other enough to acknowledge that we are each persuaded fairly of our belief rather than imposing a subjective bias on it. I'd appreciate it anyway.
Popular in the case of the transmission of texts down the history of the church DOES indicate correctness, unless you believe that for the majority of history the church was without a reliable Bible. Then what are we to with God's promise to preserve His words?
Yes, the reasoning is that the "earliest" manuscripts - those that happened to have survived the ravages of time the longest -- and exist now in the smallest numbers, are the corrupt ones. The ones that survived and now exist in the greatest numbers from later times were the ones accepted by the church down the centuries.
Yes, taht is the reasoning.
But here again, where you bring up John MacArthur, I'm just going to say I guess you trust him and I don't, I trust Burgon. (I also found MacArthur's argument on another Biblical topic I was investigating last year to be frankly irresponsible, but that's another topic for another time).
So, thanks for the discussion. I'll try to resist the temptation to answer if you write more, just so we can bring this to an end.
Oh about the criteria for corruption, Burgon has no problem identifying the tests W&H favored as corrupt, and he treats this as common knowledge among textual critics.
And he was not a KJV-only.
I meant "teXts" of course.
Maybe should also have explained again that Burgon was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort and according to some even better qualified as a textual critic than they. Certainly Prebendary Scrivener, also a contemporary who shared Burgon's view, was better qualified, as attested by many.
The words may remain the same, but our UNDERSTANDING of what they MEAN changes a great deal over time.
In my (pretty good) training in the twin fields of English and English Literature one of thee techniques were taught was ALWAYS to PARAPHRASE or at least write a PRECIS of any poem or essay we were assigned to read. The exercise was an EXCELLENT springboard for discussion in class–––discussion from which we often gained insight we'd never have gleaned from rote memorization or mere repetition.
Words not brought to life by THOUGHT and our unique capacity to INTERPRET and EVALUATE whatever data comes our way are like piles of brick and stone that never become part of a building.
FT
Popular in the case of the transmission of texts down the history of the church DOES indicate correctness, unless you believe that for the majority of history the church was without a reliable Bible. Then what are we to with God's promise to preserve His words?
While being widely accepted is important the Early church didn't start in the 17th century nor did it have the KJV. If widely accepted were the criteria you'd be on the wrong side of the argument today.
Preserve His word does not equate to KJV. Sorry. This circular argument is getting quite tiresome. AND if God can preserve his word in King James English he can do it in other translations.
Oh about the criteria for corruption, Burgon has no problem identifying the tests W&H favored as corrupt, and he treats this as common knowledge among textual critics.
then the argument seems quite trivial then doesn't it, since there are no doctrines of the major church that are questioned and the problem of translation is inherent in all of them.
What of those who don't speaka da English?
I trust Macarthur and others concerning this argument because they favor open intellectual inquiry. This seems to me to be most favorable because it tries to remove any bias'...e.g. traditionalists who favor the KJV because they've always used it
You are confusing different points here. The corruption of the manuscripts is one point, the willynilly changes in the English translation is another.
these aren't willy nilly...James Greek mentions this in his power point, there are quite logical arguments for those changes.
I'm not confusing the issue I'm trying to figure out what your beef is
there are no doctrinal disputes and the changes that have been established are just as documented
I'm no expert either
Sorry you found it offensive.
I don't find it offensive...I find it useless
it's ambiguous at the very least and I get tired of Christians who use terms and phrases that mean nothing
What it means? Men who really spend a lot of time with God and really believe the Bible. That can't be said for Westcott and Hort or Bruce Metzger for instance.
How much time does Burgon spend with God? Macarthur?
You didn't mention a conspiracy but your remark smacked of collusion.
those that happened to have survived the ravages of time the longest
Yes, the reasoning is that the "earliest" manuscripts -
I believe the Majority Text during the first Millenium was the Alexandrian manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts as I understand it predate the Byzantine
I realize that Burgon is a Major Text only proponent and I can infer from Macarthur's statement that his statement that Burgon's book is reasonable that Macarthur wouldn't be able to say this without having read the book
You think you know Macarthur:
hmmmm?
I quote:
There is a man who has done some significant and very sane and scholarly investigation into these matters. He champions the Byzantine or Majority Text as the family of manuscripts which most accurately represent the autographs. His name is Zane Hodges and he teaches New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. As you sincerely pursue this matter, let me suggest that you contact him and let him send you the materials that he has written. He's also in the process of preparing the Greek New Testament from the Byzantine text. I know you will want to use this in preparation for your messages.
Why on earth are you so testy by the way? Have I been testy with you? Sorry if so, but really I don't think so.
Forgive me if I've seemed testy.
White makes clear the logical reasons for any difference in translation. They seem very reasonable.
And also contrary to what you seem to be saying, the office of pastor/elder is a gift of God, one of the gifts of the Spirit, as are teacher, prophet, evangelist and so on. Surely you know that is Biblical.
This isn't what you said. You said that we should appoint some group of learned people to make these decisions for us. You find that Biblical?
I can only point to sources such as Dean Burgon
that would source not sources
You've read one thing, I've read another and that's as far as we can go here I believe.
We agree.
'did' Burgon spend
FT, not sure of your point. I did say that a reason the KJV needs (some minimal) updating is that we do no longer read the words the same as they did in 1611.
While being widely accepted is important the Early church didn't start in the 17th century nor did it have the KJV.
Huh? I thought I was talking about a textual tradition -- the one that underlies the KJV -- that goes back over 1500 years before Westcott and Hort. Not the KJV itself but the Textus Receptus. Even Hort acknowledged this.
If widely accepted were the criteria you'd be on the wrong side of the argument today.
Good point. It's only the criteria for the pre-1881 centuries.
Preserve His word does not equate to KJV. Sorry. This circular argument is getting quite tiresome.
Well, since it's your own argument and not mine you are free to drop it at any time. Again, I was talking about the textual tradition on which it was based, which had a long history before the KJV came along. It was known as the Traditional Text, later the Textus Receptus in particular. The Alexandrian texts were NOT accepted even though they were known to exist. Sorry if I'm repeating myself but you don't seem to be getting the point.
AND if God can preserve his word in King James English he can do it in other translations.
No doubt, but the question is whether how much that is actually in those translations is His word.
CJ: Oh about the criteria for corruption, Burgon has no problem identifying the tests W&H favored as corrupt, and he treats this as common knowledge among textual critics.
EB: then the argument seems quite trivial then doesn't it, since there are no doctrines of the major church that are questioned and the problem of translation is inherent in all of them.
Oh the doctrines ARE questioned because they are eliminated from so many parts of the new versions. I didn't mean to say that just because you can construct the doctrines by assembling various verses in the texts that that makes them kosher. It doesn't. It's an academic point that I was granting. Yeah, sure, you CAN construct the basics.
What of those who don't speaka da English?
I trust Macarthur and others concerning this argument because they favor open intellectual inquiry. This seems to me to be most favorable because it tries to remove any bias'...e.g. traditionalists who favor the KJV because they've always used it
Again you are misrepresenting me. I'm not defending those who have always used the KJV nor have I always used it myself nor have I given you any reason to say this about me. I arrived at my view by studying it and not confining myself to the new versions apologists, which is apparently where you stopped. I don't think the Bible should be treated like any other text that "intellectual inquiry" can address.
CJ: You are confusing different points here. The corruption of the manuscripts is one point, the willynilly changes in the English translation is another.
EB: these aren't willy nilly...James Greek mentions this in his power point, there are quite logical arguments for those changes.
I see, "pinions" for "feathers" perhaps? "Bulwark" for "buckler" perhaps, which is "rampart" in yet another translation? Too bad I can't see PowerPoint. While a sophist can probably construct a "logical" argument for such things, there is no NECESSARY reason for any of these changes.
I'm not confusing the issue I'm trying to figure out what your beef is
Oh, my beef. Well, it's kind of like the beef a Christian has against the cults or any twisting of Christian doctrine, and the subtle kinds are the worst.
1. I think it was a disservice to Christians to burden us with hundreds of Bibles to choose from.
2. I think it causes chaos in the churches when we can't ever be on the same page in quoting to one another or memorizing the text. I think it raises doubts about the word of God in subtle ways in people's minds. I think it trivializes the word of God and profanes it, and this affects how people read the Bible.
3. I am disgusted that flimflam artists like Westcott and Hort should ever have been given any status whatever in the church, unbelieving men who defrauded the committee they served on of what they were assigned to do, who imposed their own inferior judgment on the text of God's word and cast their undeserving shadow over the subsequent history of the church. And I do believe that there has to have been a spiritual depression on the church from trusting in their work, repercussions we probably can't yet recognize, a toll taken in the strength of conversions, in the spiritual strength of believers, some influence toward the wishywashy seekersensitive churches, a profanation, a secularization, a weakening. Because the word of God has been weakened and because people are regarding the word of God as just like any other book to be handled by scholars rather than men of God.
there are no doctrinal disputes and the changes that have been established are just as documented
Again, there ARE doctrinal disputes. Doctrine has not been completely falsified but it has been watered down. And what changes have been "documented" and what does documenting them do for us?
it's ambiguous at the very least and I get tired of Christians who use terms and phrases that mean nothing
What it means? Men who really spend a lot of time with God and really believe the Bible. That can't be said for Westcott and Hort or Bruce Metzger for instance.
How much time does Burgon spend with God? Macarthur?
My contrast was with Westcott and Hort, nobody else.
You didn't mention a conspiracy but your remark smacked of collusion.
The only conspiracy I see is Westcott and Hort's. I think most of those who have followed in their footsteps are their dupes, not conspirators.
I believe the Majority Text during the first Millenium was the Alexandrian manuscripts and the Alexandrian manuscripts as I understand it predate the Byzantine
As I understand it there have been found Byzantine type texts that predate the earliest Alexandrian, in the form of translations that have the Byzantine content if not the Greek text itself and I'm not sure about this. But just because a copy of a particular text has survived from an earlier time than copies of another type of text does not mean anything about its validity. Why didn't that supposed earlier Majority Text survive and get passed on is the question? Why are the majority of the texts in existence the Byzantine type? There is NO proof that the Alexandrian type ever existed in any great numbers, or even that they predated the Byzantine. And now there are the translations of the Byzantine type that predate the earliest Alexandrian anyway, but this I need to find out more about.
I realize that Burgon is a Major Text only proponent and I can infer from Macarthur's statement that his statement that Burgon's book is reasonable that Macarthur wouldn't be able to say this without having read the book
There is nothing in what he actually said that convinces me of that.
You think you know Macarthur:
hmmmm?
I quote:
There is a man who has done some significant and very sane and scholarly investigation into these matters. He champions the Byzantine or Majority Text as the family of manuscripts which most accurately represent the autographs. His name is Zane Hodges and he teaches New Testament and Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary. As you sincerely pursue this matter, let me suggest that you contact him and let him send you the materials that he has written. He's also in the process of preparing the Greek New Testament from the Byzantine text. I know you will want to use this in preparation for your messages.
Good for MacArthur. Too bad he ended up with the NASB. Zane Hodges is someone I have yet to read, but I hope to eventually.
White makes clear the logical reasons for any difference in translation. They seem very reasonable.
Unfortunately I have no idea what those logical reasons are according to you so I can't comment, but W&H made 36,000 changes in the text they were not authorized to make and the number has only increased with each new "translation" since then.
CJ: And also contrary to what you seem to be saying, the office of pastor/elder is a gift of God, one of the gifts of the Spirit, as are teacher, prophet, evangelist and so on. Surely you know that is Biblical.
EB: This isn't what you said. You said that we should appoint some group of learned people to make these decisions for us. You find that Biblical?
Perhaps you were answering something else than I thought you were answering, but For heaven's sake, it's not UNBiblical. I meant the decisions about what the TEXT MEANS, the decisions that go into making a TRANSLATION. That takes expertise, it is not a function of the priesthood of all believers.
We shouldn't have hundreds of different Bibles we have to choose from. They were done by self-appointed scholars attached to publishing companies whose interest is in selling books, rather than by church-authorized scholars, which is already a big problem, and then the result is that all Christians down to the most illiterate are given a responsibility to choose from these productions that should not be ours.
By the way, to whom was MacArthur addressing his advice to write to Zane Hodges?
What ABOUT those that don't speaka da English?
Well, when the missionaries who make their Bibles for them are English speakers they should work from the KJV.
Or they can work from the Textus Receptus or any other translation based on it.
Does that answer your question?
CJ: Oh about the criteria for corruption, Burgon has no problem identifying the tests W&H favored as corrupt, and he treats this as common knowledge among textual critics.
EB: then the argument seems quite trivial then doesn't it, since there are no doctrines of the major church that are questioned and the problem of translation is inherent in all of them.
The reason I said Burgon had no problem saying the Alexandrian texts were corrupt was that HE's my evidence. You said I had no evidence for the corruption of the texts. He flatly said that it was known among textual critics of his time that those manuscripts were an abomination to be shunned.
So I don't get your answer to me. How is this a trivial point?
By the way, to whom was MacArthur addressing his advice to write to Zane Hodges?
I provided the link but it was a pastor who is a proponent of KJV.
I guess I can quit providing links as you're not looking at them anyway. So I started pasting parts in so that I could make my point. I've tried to italicize and provide links to my sources.
Good for MacArthur. Too bad he ended up with the NASB.
Again if you had read the links you would know that Macarthur uses a Scofield Reference Bible which is basically a King James Version.
The reason I said Burgon had no problem saying the Alexandrian texts were corrupt was that HE's my evidence. You said I had no evidence for the corruption of the texts. He flatly said that it was known among textual critics of his time that those manuscripts were an abomination to be shunned.
Burgon claims that the Alexandrian texts were not popular or "worn out", but consider
that others have raised this questions:
If the Byzantine text was so "highly valuable that they wore out," then why do we find all of the early church fathers for 300 years using other texts such as the Alexandrian text-type, mix-types, etc., but absolutely no Byzantine texts? In other words, nowhere is there to be found any Byzantine texts used in the voluminous writings of any early church fathers for the first 300 years of church history!
If the early orthodox fathers were not using Byzantine texts, then who were? Heterodox teachers and heretics? Who was using these phantom texts? There is no evidence that anyone possessed or used this phantom “popular” and “highly valued” Byzantine text. So, not only do we have phantom manuscripts in the early church we have all these phantom believers who were using these manuscripts extensively, and consequently they "wore out."
Dan Wallace makes a great point on the utter improbability that the Byzantine text existed in the early church. He writes, "what is to explain their complete nonexistence before the late fourth century? Are we to suppose that every single ‘good’ NT somehow wasted away—that no historical accident could have preserved even one from the first 350 years? The quaint analogy that a used Bible gets worn out might work in individual cases. But to argue this on a grand scale stretches the credibility of the theory far beyond the breaking point. Would one not expect to see at least some early papyri...with a distinctively Byzantine text form? It will not do to say that all the early papyri represent the local text of Egypt, because every text-type is apparently found in the papyri—except the Byzantine" (See his "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique").
Related to the previous point, KJVO advocates evidently do not recognize an obvious flaw in their argument when they assert that the Byzantine text was very popular and therefore many copies were produced. If this Byzantine form of text was copied so many times, then we would expect to find many extant copies—not zero. So this argument only self-refutes and demonstrates the opposite conclusion.
But just because a copy of a particular text has survived from an earlier time than copies of another type of text does not mean anything about its validity.
right but this was your argument earlier, that the texts that had survived the longest should be used
Unfortunately I have no idea what those logical reasons are according to you so I can't comment, but W&H made 36,000 changes in the text they were not authorized to make and the number has only increased with each new "translation" since then.
I've provided three links now to show what those changes were and why they were logical
I trust Macarthur and others concerning this argument because they favor open intellectual inquiry. This seems to me to be most favorable because it tries to remove any bias'...e.g. traditionalists who favor the KJV because they've always used it
I didn't mention you at all in this paragraph so I don't know why you think I misrepresented you when all I did was mention 'me' and Macarthur
I wasn't calling you a traditionalist, I used it as an example
It also concerns me that many of the KJV-only advocates can trace their roots to Benjamin Wilkinson. As you may know he was a Seventh Day Adventist missionary
Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), he wrote a book supporting KJV-onlyism which was largely ignored because the errors. In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott-Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally. He also
expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping.
Or they can work from the Textus Receptus or any other translation based on it.
To use the TR would ignore the issue that the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (KJV)--have 1,838 differences between them. In other words, the Textus Receptus is a very poor reflection of the Byzantine text-type.
As I understand it there have been found Byzantine type texts that predate the earliest Alexandrian, in the form of translations that have the Byzantine content if not the Greek text itself and I'm not sure about this.
There are fundamental empirical-historical problems with such a claim: The most glaring problem is that there is not a single Greek manuscript, papyrus, or early version for the first 300 years of church history that contains a distinct KJV (or Byzantine) reading from a manuscript that reflects a Byzantine text.
I meant the decisions about what the TEXT MEANS, the decisions that go into making a TRANSLATION.
You may think differently but I don't find this Biblical. My objection to the way I perceived your statement was that it would make for 2 classes of believers. Something Luther quite frankly fought hard to change.
I also think it's quite impractical. You would find far too many of these men serving one particular thought or another, denomination, cult etc. (e.g. Watchtower). You'd have others disputing credentials...not practical. It would mean that those not 'trained' in TC would become automatons. To some extent this happens now, putting our trust in say one or small group of men doesn't give me any warm fuzzies.
Some have remarked that:
The relevance of textual criticism, however, is not shut up only to those who have acquaintance with Greek, nor only to those in explicitly expository ministries. I think it's the responsibility of every Christian to investigate and be ready in season and out.
We shouldn't have hundreds of different Bibles we have to choose from.
I think this might be a bit of an exaggeration.
EB: I'm sorry I'm not reading the links, but I hate having to spend a lot of time on links in the middle of a conversation. Fine to put them in as reading for later if I have time, or include the particular content you want me to to respond to as you are now doing (but it would help if you put the link in with the quote or at least said who said it.)
In the early 90s MacArthur was recommending the NASB as I recall. What's the date on the material you are quoting from about his use of the Scofield?
No, it was NOT my argument that the texts that had survived the longest should be used, EB, my argument was that the texts that exist in the greatest numbers with the longest history of transmission are the ones that should be used, and those are the Byzantine type. The Alexandrian exist in very few very early texts, NOT recommended.
That information about the Alexandrian texts being the ones used by the church fathers is the exact opposite of what I've heard. Quotations from the Byzantine type are the ones I've heard about. But without evidence, since I'm rushing through this and am not going to track it down, I realize I have to end the discussion.
Burgon didn't merely claim the A. texts were not popular or were worn out, he denounced them in pretty colorful scathing language as known to be corrupt. And here it would be good to take the time to find you a link but as indicated above I'm now just trying to give quick answers to get to the end of the discussion.
I disagree with James White (I recognize the quote) that ordinary Christians should have the responsibility to judge God's word. That's NOT biblical. It's probably true that nowadays we couldn't get together a trustworthy panel of textual critics for the job so as a practical matter I'm not recommending it, but in theory it ought to be possible. The appointers would have to be church leaders from Bible-believing churches who share a basic theology. The 47 King James translators were a good example it seems to me.
The TR may be a "poor" representative according to today's textual critics but I trust what the KJV translators trusted.
Sorry I have to abandon ship for the rest of the day or perhaps end this altogether.
But I do thank you for the discussion. At my blog I've only attracted a couple of extreme KJ-onlies and was wishing a new versions apologist would show up so I could get a better sense of what topics need emphasis.
Oh, I'm only personally aware of a dozen or so modern versions but some have reported that if you count every version with some unique features it is in the hundreds. But if you dispute the number I'm happy with a dozen or so.
Post a Comment