RE: The KJV Only Debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

lmwal931 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/7/2008 9:33:45 PM)

i like the kjv the best but sometimes another version is clearer. all are good. the nas is also very good. the paraphrase bibles i don't like.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/8/2008 12:55:20 AM)

quote:

I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.


I doubt that the count is accurate. There are some verses that are supposedly deleted, but they aren't really. First, they are in the footnotes, and they have been put there because the manuscript evidence led the editors to believe that those verses were not originally part of the Bible.

You have to understand that copying documents by hand is a difficult thing to do. And, in the first centuries, they didn't have comfortable desks and good lighting. To make it even harder, the style of writing in those days was to have all the letters in once case - what we now call capitol letters and there were no spaces between the words.

There are a number of causes of copyist errors. In some cases, one word was put in place of another because the copyist was copying by dictation and wrote a word that sounds similar to the one that was read from the previous manuscript. Another type of error occurs when the copyist reads a phrase from the manuscript, looks to the sheet he is copying on, writes, and then when he looks back at the first manuscript, he looks back to the wrong spot, sometimes because a word has been repeated, or a word ending is similar.

Still another type of error occurs when a person is very familiar with passages of scripture. There are passages in the Bible that are very similar to each other and sometimes a copyist will mistakenly put a phrase from a similar passage into the passage that is being copied. Actually, I have made that kind of mistake myself when writing papers. I've done that when quoting Bible verses, and I did it when I took a class on the writings of C. S. Lewis and needed to quote passages from his books. When proofreading my paper, I found that I had put phrases from another book where something similar was being written into quotes from the book I was writing the paper about.

Some of the so called deleted verses were from this kind of error, where some copyist added a phrase from a similar passage into the passage he was copying.

Still another kind of error occurs when the owner of a manuscript would make notes in the margin of his manuscript, clarifying a passage. Manuscript copyists would also write corrections in the margin when they found errors in their copying. Later copyists might not be sure if the note in the margin is a commentary note or a manuscript correction and so they would copy it into the text in order to not leave out any of God's word.

I think that count of 42 verses might be a little inflated though. There are two whole passages that many scholars believe were added at some later point - part of the last chapter of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus for judgement in the book of John, chapter 8, I believe. The KJVO websites love to claim that these two passages were deleted, but I don't know of a single translation that deleted them. They are usually marked off with something like brackets and then there is a footnote saying some manuscripts did not have this passage. This problem has been known since the 4th century and earlier because in the 4th century, a number of men traveled extensively to check as many manuscripts as they were able and they found the evidence to be such that they could not come to a definitive conclusion.

I think it is dishonest to claim that these passages were deleted when they weren't. And, I think it is honest to mark these two passages in such a way to let people know that they were not found in every manuscript. The person who reads the Bible can then read this and seek the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit concerning them.



rwe2156 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/8/2008 8:47:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JordanW
I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation
deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.

Deleted? Or corrected an error, perhaps?

Actually, the NIV is based on newer transcripts, which is why
some passages like Mark 16 do not appear.

However, a note is usually made, like "these verses do not
appear in such and such manuscripts.

Same with John 7:58, I believe.

Good Luck.

The NIV is still one of the most scholarly translations
available in readable language.

And don't be fooled by "meaning for meaning" vs.
"word for word" translations - they are ALL
interpretations by the very fact they are translations.



rwe2156 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/8/2008 8:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lmwal931

i like the kjv the best but sometimes another version is clearer.

Sometimes? [:)]

quote:

all are good.

All are not good, depending on what you are doing.

You wouldn't do a word study from The Message, for example.

quote:

the nas is also very good.

I agree. It is my main study Bible, FWIW.

quote:

the paraphrase bibles i don't like.

Not good for the student, but can be very useful
for the new Christian or seeker.

The Message is very good this way.



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/9/2008 1:45:44 AM)

quote:

The NIV is still one of the most scholarly translations
available in readable language.

And don't be fooled by "meaning for meaning" vs.
"word for word" translations - they are ALL
interpretations by the very fact they are translations.



The NIV is the version I use daily and it is a translation in which I have a great deal of trust, but there really is something to the "meaning for meaning" vs. "word for word" translation debate, and among biblical scholars the benefits and weakness of both styles of translation are recognized. One of the weakness of a "thought for thought" translation is that it does allow greater interpretive freedoms than a "word for word" translation allows. If that interpretation is a valid representation of the text then it brings greater understanding to the English reader, but if it simply reflects a poor understanding of the translator then resulting translation is more likely to obscure a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

Some examples where the NIV interpretations are a little off:

(minor) In Hebrew there is a word for "descendants" i.e. 'toldot'; however, in Ex. 1:5 Moses chose not to use that word but instead described "descendants" in very poetic language. The verse literally reads "and it was all the soul(s) coming out of the loins of Jacob, seventy soul(s)". Versions like the NASB, KJV, NEB, etc.. capture the poetry of this verse; however, the poetic nature of this verse is completely lost in the NIV.

(a little more serious) In Ex. 1 several times the text refers to Pharo's fear of the Israelites being due to the fact that they were growing in number and military might. For some unknown reason the NIV translators choose to ignore the reference to the might and/or power of the Israelites and instead change the text to indicate only their growing number. A quick check of almost any other translation will show the difference in interpretation here.

(a little more serious) The NIV regularly replaces the names of places and people given in the text of the bible with names that are commonly assumed to be references to the same people by another more common name. This is done despite any manuscript evidence to support such a change, and sometimes this is done when the change is still under dispute. A good example is Xerxes in Ester. The text reads Ahasuarus and not Xerxes. While Xerxes is likely to be a another name of Ahasuarus, this link is far from conclusive. If a latter discovery proves this to be in error, then the text of all our NIV bibles will be proven wrong.

There are numerous other examples of similar "interpretations" made by the NIV translators. None are serious compromises to the truth of God's word, but they are interpretive choices of which we should be aware.

Also I do think that it is important to realize that every version of the bible makes similar interpretive choice, but the "word for word" translations do it far less frequently. A couple of examples where almost every major English translations has made interpretive choices that, while valid, do not reflect the underlying original text. In Job 1:5,11 and 2:6,9 each instance of the word "curse" is a translation of the Hebrew word 'BRK' (bless). From the context this is interpreted as a "euphemistic curse"; however, that is an interpretive choice made by these translators, and one that is not completely agreed upon by all scholars. Unfortunately some versions (NIV and NASB in paticular) don't even bother to foot note this!!! Another similar interpretive choice made by most English translations is the translation of "I AM" simply God in Ho. 1:9. The text literally reads "because you are not my people, and I am not 'I AM' to you". This is clearly a reference to Lord God as the 'I AM' of Exodus 3:14. Translating this as simply 'God' is accurate, but really looses the connection this passage has with the Exodus account.



rwe2156 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/9/2008 7:41:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
The NIV is the version I use daily and it is a translation in which I have a great deal of trust, but there really is something to the "meaning for meaning" vs. "word for word" translation debate, and among biblical scholars the benefits and weakness of both styles of translation are recognized. One of the weakness of a "thought for thought" translation is that it does allow greater interpretive freedoms than a "word for word" translation allows. If that interpretation is a valid representation of the text then it brings greater understanding to the English reader, but if it simply reflects a poor understanding of the translator then resulting translation is more likely to obscure a correct understanding of the Scriptures.

Some examples where the NIV interpretations are a little off:

(minor) In Hebrew there is a word for "descendants" i.e. 'toldot'; however, in Ex. 1:5 Moses chose not to use that word but instead described "descendants" in very poetic language. The verse literally reads "and it was all the soul(s) coming out of the loins of Jacob, seventy soul(s)". Versions like the NASB, KJV, NEB, etc.. capture the poetry of this verse; however, the poetic nature of this verse is completely lost in the NIV.

(a little more serious) In Ex. 1 several times the text refers to Pharo's fear of the Israelites being due to the fact that they were growing in number and military might. For some unknown reason the NIV translators choose to ignore the reference to the might and/or power of the Israelites and instead change the text to indicate only their growing number. A quick check of almost any other translation will show the difference in interpretation here.

(a little more serious) The NIV regularly replaces the names of places and people given in the text of the bible with names that are commonly assumed to be references to the same people by another more common name. This is done despite any manuscript evidence to support such a change, and sometimes this is done when the change is still under dispute. A good example is Xerxes in Ester. The text reads Ahasuarus and not Xerxes. While Xerxes is likely to be a another name of Ahasuarus, this link is far from conclusive. If a latter discovery proves this to be in error, then the text of all our NIV bibles will be proven wrong.

There are numerous other examples of similar "interpretations" made by the NIV translators. None are serious compromises to the truth of God's word, but they are interpretive choices of which we should be aware.

Also I do think that it is important to realize that every version of the bible makes similar interpretive choice, but the "word for word" translations do it far less frequently. A couple of examples where almost every major English translations has made interpretive choices that, while valid, do not reflect the underlying original text. In Job 1:5,11 and 2:6,9 each instance of the word "curse" is a translation of the Hebrew word 'BRK' (bless). From the context this is interpreted as a "euphemistic curse"; however, that is an interpretive choice made by these translators, and one that is not completely agreed upon by all scholars. Unfortunately some versions (NIV and NASB in paticular) don't even bother to foot note this!!! Another similar interpretive choice made by most English translations is the translation of "I AM" simply God in Ho. 1:9. The text literally reads "because you are not my people, and I am not 'I AM' to you". This is clearly a reference to Lord God as the 'I AM' of Exodus 3:14. Translating this as simply 'God' is accurate, but really looses the connection this passage has with the Exodus account.
WOW!

If that wasn't a cut and paste you are quite the Biblical scholar!

How about the KJ use word effeminate in 1Cor 6:9? Had a good friend of mine
leave my church over that one (VERY serious).

Or 'Easter' in Acts 12:4?

So even "word for word" can get you in a fix.

There's problems everywhere no doubt.

If people would just read their Bibles.........



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/9/2008 10:02:52 AM)

quote:

WOW!

If that wasn't a cut and paste you are quite the Biblical scholar!


Well, that wasn't a cut and paste, so thanks [:)]

quote:


How about the KJ use word effeminate in 1Cor 6:9? Had a good friend of mine
leave my church over that one (VERY serious).

Or 'Easter' in Acts 12:4?

So even "word for word" can get you in a fix.

There's problems everywhere no doubt.


Yes, every translation does have its weaknesses; however, the examples above I think reflect more of the interpretive problem of a "thought for thought" translation than they do reflect the real problems of a "word for word" translation i.e. they reflect interpretative decisions made by the translator rather than simply a "word for word" translation of the text. The "Easter" of Acts 12:4 is a classic example of such an bad interpretative choice. "Word for Word" translations do make these same kinds of choices, but they do tend to make them far less frequently.

The true weakness of a "word for word" translation is that when idioms that have no meaning in English are translated "word for word" and the intended thought can be lost. Because of this problem, almost all "word for word" translations do use some form of dynamic equivalence and are not really true "word for word" translations. However, sometimes when a dynamic equivalent would have been better, they still do translate "word for word".

As an example, if I were to say in Hebrew:

"You want me to do this standing on one leg?"

A Hebrew speaker would hear:

"You want me to do this so quickly that the request is absolutely unreasonable!"

This understanding comes because of a story told in the Mishnah about a two men who requested that Rabbi Hillel explain the entire Torah while "standing on one leg"; because the Mishnah has not impacted the langauge and culture of most English readers in the same way it has that of Hebrew speaking Jews, most English readers do not understand the idiom and a "word for word" translation of this phrase would not convey the thought that was intended by the author.


quote:


If people would just read their Bibles.........



I absolutely agree!

Added to that thought, hopefully they will read from more than one version on occasion.



Doc65 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (6/9/2008 11:57:14 AM)

quote:

The true weakness of a "word for word" translation is that when idioms that have no meaning in English are translated "word for word" and the intended thought can be lost. Because of this problem, almost all "word for word" translations do use some form of dynamic equivalence and are not really true "word for word" translations. However, sometimes when a dynamic equivalent would have been better, they still do translate "word for word".

As an example, if I were to say in Hebrew:

"You want me to do this standing on one leg?"

A Hebrew speaker would hear:

"You want me to do this so quickly that the request is absolutely unreasonable!"

This understanding comes because of a story told in the Mishnah about a two men who requested that Rabbi Hillel explain the entire Torah while "standing on one leg"; because the Mishnah has not impacted the langauge and culture of most English readers in the same way it has that of Hebrew speaking Jews, most English readers do not understand the idiom and a "word for word" translation of this phrase would not convey the thought that was intended by the author.


Yes, it would be best if folks would read their Bibles but, as you noted, an understanding and ability to read the original languages is best, especially if one has a grasp of idioms...the Hebrew is a lot more interesting and even fun to read than an English translation and actually helps to reveal what is often read as a gloss in the OT (and a whole lot better than the Septuagint for meaning); the Greek of the NT gives deeper meaning to what we read in the NT, even though I really, really dislike slogging my way through Greek, but Koine is sooo much better than Attic...



HeadHome -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (6/9/2008 12:28:40 PM)

My short-cut reply:

I love parts of the KJV - but I can do without the "shouldst's" and "hadst's" and so on. Psalm 23 is a great example. I love to hear and say, "My cup runneth over." But I almost can't tolerate "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; Thou anointest my head with oil..." I don't know anyone outside of church and Shakespeare festivals who talks like that, and I value speaking clearly to people more than I value the tradition of the KJV. So...
I use the Nelson NKJV study Bible most frequently. I also have Nelson's Open Bible in the NKJV. I use the NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Word version at times for studying; and my ESV goes to church with me, since it uses the NIV, NLT, and the Message. I consider the ESV the 'lowest common denominator,' baseline acceptable translation.
I put the NIV a step below the ESV, and then there are the ones I don't like and never use - New Living, New Century, Amplified, and Message versions.

Peace - May God bless you, whatever translation you use.



DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (8/28/2008 11:59:30 AM)

New Member christym78 asked:
quote:

I was always under the impression that the 1611 had never been changed but i was told yesterday that in 1885 there was a revision done is true, does anyone know anything about it?
and she was directed here.

Example of the changes in KJV from the 1611 version and what we all grew up with:

1611 version

Mar 1:1 The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ, the Sonne of God,
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the Prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wildernesse, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 Iohn did baptize in the wildernesse, and preach the baptisme of repentance, for the remission of sinnes.
Mar 1:5 And there went out vnto him all the land of Iudea, and they of Ierusalem, and were all baptized of him in the riuer of Iordane, cofessing their sinnes.
Mar 1:6 And Iohn was clothed with camels haire, and with a girdle of a skin about his loines: and he did eat locusts and wilde honie,
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There commeth one mightier then I after me, the latchet of whose shooes I am not worthy to stoupe downe, and vnloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed haue baptized you with water: but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost.
Mar 1:9 And it came to passe in those daies, that Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of Iohn in Iordane.
Mar 1:10 And straightway comming vp out of the water, hee saw the heauens opened, and the Spirit like a doue descending vpon him.
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heauen, saying, Thou art my beloued Sonne, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driueth him into the wildernesse.
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wildernesse fourtie daies tempted of Satan, and was with the wildbeasts, and the Angels ministred vnto him.
Mar 1:14 Now after that Iohn was put in prison, Iesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospell of the kingdome of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdome of God is at hand: repent ye, and beleeue the Gospell.


"current" version

Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospe of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mar 1:6 And John1 was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and2532 he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.



rwe2156 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (8/29/2008 7:18:55 AM)

quote:


I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.
1. I doubt this is true.

2. Who's to say the other Bible didn't add them in, hmmm?

3. The NIV is based on newer and better manuscripts.



Tagurit -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/3/2008 10:58:27 AM)

I grew up with the KJV and memorized many passages from that one but now I use the NASB and ESV primarily. I have read through the entire bible in the NIV, Living Bible (when I was a child--you know the green covered one), KJV, NASB, and now working through the ESV now.

A few people recently have said that reading the bible is far more important than arguing over which translation to use. The KJV is a decent translation but I think McFatty put it best...

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

snip.

...The problem (among others) I have with the King James only philosophy is that I have a hard time believing that God would find the people living in the early 1600s more in need or more worthy or whatever of a translation in their modern common-man language than any other time in history.



ndusty3 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (9/6/2008 6:07:07 PM)

I am sure most kjv-only advocates do not see themselves this way, but as an outsider hired into a kjv-only ministry I received a different perspective. While it was a non-issue to me, it was an issue to them that had a wide ranging array of effects. I perceived them as critical, unforgiving, intolerant, and hateful toward those who did not agree with them on everything. Sometimes just being an outsider was enough. Questions were viewed as challenges to the authority of those in leadership positons. Doing anything new or different from the way everyone else considered "acceptable" made one an "erring brother" from whom they separated and often drove to compliance or drove out of the ministy. Problems were dealt with behind the back of the offender rather than in loving obedience to the principles taught in Matthew 18. Rather than restoration of the "erring brother" the goal was either compliance(submission to their authority) or separation from "their" group. Regardless of any of the sincere merits of their case, actions speak louder than words. They discredit their own position and use the Scripture to justify their misconduct as spiritual when in reality it is mean-spirited and vindictive. They talk about their love for the lost, but then have no problem with offensive behavior that drives even other Christians away, to say nothing of the unchurched. I now regard that particular kjv-only ministry as a frightenly cultish one. I still respect their right to their views, but to treat other Christians and the unsaved in such a manner cannot be condoned.



johnkw -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/9/2008 1:36:54 PM)

Really does look like Mark 16:9-20 is expunged.

hmm...

Thanks, Ezra, for your insights. 2 months ago, I would have said the "KJV-only" controversy is silly; why waste time on it. Now I understand how relevant it is. And as I see it, it's not a matter of KJV-only, but Textus Receptus/ben Chayyim -only.



johnkw -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 2:06:53 PM)

I just bought a KJV. I was afraid the English would be archaic, but it's actually quite readable. Someone in the Dean Burgon Society did a readability analysis by computer, and it showed that the KJV is quite readable at even a Middle School level.

I am just starting to investigate this issue, but it seems to me to grow in importance, every day. It's almost like I've been living in The Shire all my life and not realizing the war that's building up in the rest of Middle Earth. I have some serious questions to the "me" of up to 2 months ago:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)

2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?

3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?

4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.

5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?

6. "Heaven and Earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). What with the sloughing off of Mark 16:9-20 (see here), 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, and many more (see here for Westcott & Hort's voluminous flow of red ink), seems like many words are passing away, if you think the Critical Text is the best.

7. If the above verses aren't enough, what about, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18), and
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Sounds like preservation to me.

8. Psalm 12:6-7 says "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Why is this speaking of God preserving His people and not speaking of God preserving His Words, when the immediate context says it's speaking of His Words?

9. Your rusty car may still get you to the store and back, but for how long?

10. Is older necessarily better? Especially if "older" disagrees with 99% of the rest.



johnkw -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/9/2008 2:16:01 PM)

DaveW, thanks for the post of the differences between the 1611 KJV and the 1835 KJV.
Semes to mee there are no differences to the eare, and onlie vpdates in spelinge. I vnderstand from D. A. Waite that that's prettie muche the case alle the way through the Bible.



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/9/2008 2:58:25 PM)

quote:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)


This presumes that the KJV prepresents that preservation.

quote:

2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?

3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?


The Textus Receptus is not the pure original Greek either, in spite of what the KJV advocates say.

quote:

4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.


Part of the Textus Receptus was back translated from Latin, not taken from any original manuscript. That doesn't bother you?
quote:

5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?

Wescott and Hort have been dead for quite a while. Did Ghosts work on the recent editions of the UBS?



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 6:07:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: johnkw

I just bought a KJV. I was afraid the English would be archaic, but it's actually quite readable. Someone in the Dean Burgon Society did a readability analysis by computer, and it showed that the KJV is quite readable at even a Middle School level.

I am just starting to investigate this issue, but it seems to me to grow in importance, every day. It's almost like I've been living in The Shire all my life and not realizing the war that's building up in the rest of Middle Earth. I have some serious questions to the "me" of up to 2 months ago:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)

2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?

3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?

4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.

5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?

6. "Heaven and Earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). What with the sloughing off of Mark 16:9-20 (see here), 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, and many more (see here for Westcott & Hort's voluminous flow of red ink), seems like many words are passing away, if you think the Critical Text is the best.

7. If the above verses aren't enough, what about, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18), and
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Sounds like preservation to me.

8. Psalm 12:6-7 says "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Why is this speaking of God preserving His people and not speaking of God preserving His Words, when the immediate context says it's speaking of His Words?

9. Your rusty car may still get you to the store and back, but for how long?

10. Is older necessarily better? Especially if "older" disagrees with 99% of the rest.


Do you realize that there are significant difference between the KJV/TR and all know Greek manuscripts that date prior to Erasmus' TR?

Did you know that there are significant differences between the KJV and translations like the Latin Vulgate that predate the KJV translation?

Do you realize there are significant differences between the KJV and every non English translation?

Did you know that there are passages in the KJV OT that are not supported by any known Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts?


If the argument for the KJV being the only perfect translation is that "God would have perfectly preserved his word" then the questions must be asked:

Why did he NOT preserve his word so perfectly for the first 1500 years of the church?

Why did he preserve his word in only KJV English, and not in any other language, is God partial to only the 16th Century English speakers?


BTW - the 99% difference that you quoted is absurdly wrong, one of the things the manuscript record demonstrates is the accuracy of the texts we have. Those "old" manuscripts are far more similar to the later copies than they are different.



manwe -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 7:00:57 PM)

Benelchi. Right, they act like there was no Bible until 1611....


____________________

http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com



MrFribbles -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (10/9/2008 7:03:58 PM)

1-3:
God's word being preserved does not mean that we will have a perfect, undiluted understanding of Scripture as we would from the original autographs. It is simply not possible. Even reading the Bible in English, with no knowledge of how the original languages works, does not give a, in my opinion, full understanding. It does, however, give an entirely sufficient understanding.

4-5:
If you want to go dirt-digging, I'm sure that fault can be found with every translation. I tend to trust in God to work in spite of our flaws.

6-7:
How do we know those words were stripped away by later versions, and not added to the Textus Receptus? Most serious Greek scholars I have spoken with do not think that the Mark 16 ending was written by the original author. Same with the other verses. They were likely added later by scribes to "help along" their readers.

9:
'Til it breaks down, I imagine. But my Honda isn't too rusty. Just got the oil changed and everything.

10:
Which would you trust more, a few copies of George Washington's writings from 1800, or many copies of George Washington's writings from 1900?



johnkw -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/9/2008 8:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

quote:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)


This presumes that the KJV prepresents that preservation.

It doesn't presume anything. It was a question.
And I don't believe the KJV represents that preservation, just a very good translation of that preservation.
quote:


quote:

2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?

3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?


The Textus Receptus is not the pure original Greek either, in spite of what the KJV advocates say.

This is in my mind the important issue. My point in question 3 was this: people are willing to use a "good enough" Critical Text that has many rules of logic applied to all the >5000 available Greek texts (not to mention the other > 15,000 ancient texts) such that it hopefully represents the original. Can we, in the spirit of Scrivener and Burgon, successfully refine the TR, i.e., approach the TR not as completely without flaw, but mostly correct and figure out how to make it better? This question is actually addressed to pro-TR people.
quote:


quote:

4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.


Part of the Textus Receptus was back translated from Latin, not taken from any original manuscript. That doesn't bother you?

I've listened to people who dispute this. If it turns out to be true, it will bother me.
quote:


quote:

5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?

Wescott and Hort have been dead for quite a while. Did Ghosts work on the recent editions of the UBS?

My point here is that their research and product gave huge momentum to the whole Critical Text enterprise, and the current incarnation owes an immense amount to them, both in the naturalistic approach to NT Textual Criticism, and the end product.



MrFribbles -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/9/2008 9:50:34 PM)

quote:

If it turns out to be true, it will bother me.


I had a Prof. with a doctrate from DTS who supported the view that at least the 1 John verse was put into Greek this way. Apprently, while the TR was being put together, the person in charge wouldn't include that verse because it wasn't in the Greek, so the "officials" who wanted the TR finished translated it from the Latin into Greek and presented it to him. AFter that, it was included. Not 100% sure if it's true, but like I said, a DTS Doctor thinks it is, so it can't be total bunk.



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/10/2008 12:11:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

If it turns out to be true, it will bother me.


I had a Prof. with a doctrate from DTS who supported the view that at least the 1 John verse was put into Greek this way. Apprently, while the TR was being put together, the person in charge wouldn't include that verse because it wasn't in the Greek, so the "officials" who wanted the TR finished translated it from the Latin into Greek and presented it to him. AFter that, it was included. Not 100% sure if it's true, but like I said, a DTS Doctor thinks it is, so it can't be total bunk.



Actually the verses that were translated from Latin to Greek were at the end of Revelation. Erasmus, who was in a rush to publish the first Greek NT, was solely responsible for the TR. There was no question about the validity of these verses being in the text, but Erasmus was unable to gain access to Greek manuscripts before his NT went to print. His first edition was littered with mistakes and it took several revisions to get to the text we have today. There are several places where the Greek in the TR has no known documentation in the manuscript evidence, and there is some speculation that some of these difference may be do to editorial revision by Erasmus; most attribute these difference to the haste at which Erasmus approached this project. With out knowing what the particular verse in John was that your Prof. was discussing, I am unsure what the issue there was; there are numerous textual critical questions about the TR, but the only Latin to Greek ones that I am aware of are the ones in Revelation.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/10/2008 2:31:05 AM)

quote:

1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)


God DID preserve His word. The Critical Text is part of that preservation. There are more than 5000 Greek NT manuscripts known to exist. There are many thousands more NT manuscripts in ancient translations. Compare this to existing manuscripts of literary documents of similar age, in which one is lucky to find even 100 manuscripts, and those are separated from the original writing by an average of 1000 years. You believe the Alexandrian manuscripts are vastly different to the TR manuscripts. The truth is, they are amazingly close. If you were to compare the amount of variance found among the Biblical manuscripts with the amount of variance found among the manuscripts of any given ancient document, you would be amazed at how closely the Biblical manuscripts match. It is enough to impel a person to fall to their knees in praise to God for what He has done to preserve His word!

quote:

2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?


The total of all the Greek NT manuscripts, plus the ancient translation manuscripts, plus the Biblical quotes preserved in the early Christian writings are the way God chose to preserve His word. That's good enough for me.

quote:

3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?


Well, there are many versions of the Textus Receptus, but, I believe they are all "good enough". God allowed His word to be printed from the Textus Receptus versions for a time, yet, I firmly believe God preserved those older manuscripts and revealed them in His time. I also firmly believe that God called the scholars who studied those manuscripts along with all the other evidence to continue His work of preservation.

quote:

4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.


Funny thing about this. I'd seen the KJVO claims about Carlo Martini being the next pope (and probably the anti-christ, too), so, when the former pope died, I watched as much coverage as I could, listening for his name to be mentioned. In all the coverage, with all the possible candidates mentioned, I never heard his name at all, until the very end, and then only in passing. He didn't seem to be a serious candidate at all.

On the other hand, if you really have a problem with a Catholic being involved in editing the Greek NT, you should also have a problem with the TR, because Erasmus was a Catholic. KJVO literature will tell you that he left the church and was excommunicated, but the truth is, while Erasmus saw a lot of problems with the Catholic church, and did fall into disfavor because of his calls for reform, Erasmus remained staunchly anti-Protestant and remained a committed Catholic clear up to his death.

quote:

5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?


The claim that they were occultists is a lie put out by the KJVOs. They were Anglicans and strongly against Catholicism. You may have read quotes in which they were supposed to have said something favorable about worshipping Mary, but those quotes were very mangled and manipulated to make it appear to be true. However, if you could get your hands on a copy of their writings, and find the actual passage that was written, you would see that they were very much against Mary worship.

They were involved for a short time in investigating paranormal activities for the purpose of showing them to be untrue, but they were not involved in the occult. There was a person with the last name of Wescott who was involved in the occult, but that was an entirely different person. As I understand it, documented evidence concerning this has been shown to some of those KJVO authors, yet they refuse to retract that proven untruthful claim, instead, they continue to repeat it.

quote:

6. "Heaven and Earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). What with the sloughing off of Mark 16:9-20 (see here), 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, and many more (see here for Westcott & Hort's voluminous flow of red ink), seems like many words are passing away, if you think the Critical Text is the best.

7. If the above verses aren't enough, what about, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18), and
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Sounds like preservation to me.


Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11 are spoken of in some of the early Christian writings as being not found in very many of the existing manuscripts of that time. Several scholars traveled extensively and discovered that while some manuscripts did have these passages, many of them did not - enough so that those scholars were not able to definitively say that those passages were included in the original text. Those passages have not been removed from any translation that I know of, nor any printed Greek NT edition. They are, however, marked with a notation stating that they are not found in some of the manuscripts. I believe that is the way it should be. That has been the practice of the Church since the scriptures were written and copied.

1 John 5:7 is found in only 4 or 5 Greek manuscripts, in the text. Another 4 or 5 have it in the margin. An interesting fact about those 4 or 5 manuscripts with the verse in the text - 1 or 2 of them are actually handwritten copies of one of the printed editions, and 2 of them are copies from the 16th century - contemporary with the first printed editions.

quote:

8. Psalm 12:6-7 says "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Why is this speaking of God preserving His people and not speaking of God preserving His Words, when the immediate context says it's speaking of His Words?


The theme of the whole Psalm is about the righteous being oppressed and afflicted. Verse 5 has a promise from God that He will arise and set the afflicted in safety. In verses 6 and 7, the psalmist proclaims that God's word is good - in other words, God will keep His promise to set the afflicted in safety.

If you find that debatable, the literal Hebrew is "thou shalt preserve him". The grammar does not support the word "words" to be the object of the preservation.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/10/2008 2:37:53 AM)

quote:

I had a Prof. with a doctrate from DTS who supported the view that at least the 1 John verse was put into Greek this way. Apprently, while the TR was being put together, the person in charge wouldn't include that verse because it wasn't in the Greek, so the "officials" who wanted the TR finished translated it from the Latin into Greek and presented it to him. AFter that, it was included. Not 100% sure if it's true, but like I said, a DTS Doctor thinks it is, so it can't be total bunk.


I think you may have mixed up what the Prof said. There are verses in Revelation which have evidence of being backtranslated into Greek. But, there is a story that Erasmus had promised that if he ever found a manuscript which includes that verse, he would include it. We don't know if he ever made such a promise, but, he did find manuscript with the verse included, so it was later included in his Greek NT. That manuscript is a 16th century manuscript, and some believe it may have been copied with that verse added to encourage him to include that verse.



Page: <<   < prev  44 45 [46] 47 48   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI