This thread is the consequence of many others where I have found myself in the unusual position of defending various 'modern translations' against what I felt to be unfair positions. However, although I have often defended other versions my abiding delight is in the KJV. In fact, I have found myself in exactly the position described by A W Tozer many years ago. I think this was posted on SI but I can't find it so my apologies for posting it again. Hopefully this will set the mood for this particular thread...Confessions of a New Version Addict. by A.W.Tozer.Since shortly after my conversion to Christ as a teen-ager I have been addicted to the habit of acquiring and being disappointed with new versions of the Scriptures, both revisions and new translations. It is a habit I cannot shake off. In spite of a long record of frustrated hopes and cruel disappointments, to this day I have but to hear a new version of the Scriptures has come out and I am off to the book-seller to pick up a copy. As Ponce de Leon, otherwise a sensible enough fellow, knocked about the world looking for a nonexistent fountain of youth, so I continue to look for the new version that will make any other new versions unnecessary by bringing out the meanings of the Holy Scriptures as sharply as the developer brings out the details of the picture on a photographic plate. But it never works out that way. After poring over the new book for a few days or weeks and finding that it is just one more version, I put it aside and return to my first love, the familiar King James Bible. I know its mistakes very well, its mistranslations and confused tenses; I should, for the Bible teachers are forever correcting it in public and the introductions to the new versions never tire of pointing out these flaws in the grand old English Bible. It has been my experience that the new versions make at least one mistake for every one they correct, so by the time the trusting reader has reached the last chapter of the Book of Revelation he is back where he started and just goes out by that same door where in he went. And in the meanwhile he has lost the incalculable benefit of constant and intimate mental association with the clearest, richest and most beautiful English to be found anywhere among the libraries of the World, the Authorized Version. I believe that my error has been that I have nursed the hope, perhaps subconsciously, that my dullness of spirit and coldness of heart are the result of not hearing the truth expressed clearly enough in the common language of the street; that if I could hear a promise or a commandment couched in different words it would be easier to believe and obey. But this is a gross fallacy. Words are only arbitrary symbols to convey meanings, and the meaning is all that matters. God would impart an idea to mankind, so He employs a verbal symbol which the reader can understand. That is what language is for, and that is all it is for, unless, as I have suggested above, the language becomes a thing of beauty in inself and so exerts a cultural influence upon those who read it and hear it spoken. But that is secondary; the primary purpose of language is to express truth, and it is before the bar of truth that we must all stand at last. Mark Twain, when asked what he did about the passages of Scripture he could not understand, is supposed to have replied that these did not bother him. "But the ones I can understand," he said, "often make me sweat." I believe that there is serious danger that we ignore the plain truth (which, incidentally, is about the same in all versions) while we search for novel meanings and more modern expressions of old truths which we know well enough but make no effort to obey. The chief purpose of the Word of God is to reveal saving truth, to bring men to Christ, to make them holy, to draw them into loving communion with God and to teach them how to do good to all men, especially to them that are of the household of faith. Let a man study prayerfully any of the generally recognized versions, done by proficient and responsible scholars, and the Spirit will quicken the truth to his heart and lead him toward the ends God has in view for him. Almost everything depends upon his response to the Spirit's workings. While it is important that the translations be accurate and faithful, yet better versions do not make better men. And this brings us to consider those translators who think to do God service by packing into the English text every possible shade of meaning the word will bear in the original. The synonyms are put in brackets and the reader, apparently, just takes his choice. This would never do anywhere else. Imagine reading to a child. "Twinkle, twinkle (blink, wink, shine intermittently, sparkle), little (diminutive, small, wee, tiny) star (heavenly body, luminary, orb, sphere), How I wonder (question, puzzle over, dubitate) what you are (be, have identify with, belong under the description of), Up above (atop, opposite to down, contrary to direction of gravity) the world (the earth, the abode of human-kind) so high (elevated), Like a diamond (gem, precious stone, crystallized carbon) in the sky (the heavens, the firmament, the empyrean)"Yet this is the latest religious word game in evangelical circles and we are all urged to play at it. For myself, I cannot keep serious while reading such a version, so I just pass up these uncertain translators and turn to one who can make up his mind. I have a secret love for decisiveness. It is quite natural for us humans to ignore the high moral intent of the Holy Scriptures and get lost in verbiage. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"says the old version, and multitudes over the centuries have knelt in pentitence and tearfully sought to know true poverty of spirit; lately the fad seems to be to try to find shades of meaning for the words and to express them in more colloquial language. I wonder if anyone benefits by having the same thing said several different ways for him. A few hundred years ago it was considered very much the thing for ministers preaching in English to interlard their sermons with frequent Greek and Latin words and phrases, always left untranslated by the speaker. His hearers were no doubt duly impressed with his learning but they had not the faintest notion what he was talking about. He has now been displaced by the preacher who knows enough Greek to make him uncomfortable and can never resist the temptation to turn every sermon into a classroom lecture. I have sometimes thought (and I trust not uncharitably) that the knowledge of a little Greek is a great convenience to such a man, for the Greek being a remarkably accommodating language enables him to preach anything he wants to without being challenged. All this is not to cry down true scholarship nor to discourage honest attempts to put the Bible into modem speech. It is rather to confess that I have not become a holier man nor a better preacher by my incurable addiction to new versions of the Scriptures. I find that if I am failing to live in accordance with the will of God, I get no relief by reading about that will in a new translation. As soon as God shows a man the way, it is his duty and happy privilege to walk in it. If he refuses or neglects to walk in it he may seek some temporary consolation by looking about for some version that will say the same thing to him in a different way. While he is jockeying about for new shades of meaning his conscience may get a bit of rest, but I am sure that a faithful God will not let him escape. Sometime he'll have to face up to the meaning of things, no matter in what version they are expressed. As I write I can see fifteen versions before me without turning my head and there are many more stashed about here and there. And they all say the same thing to me; namely, that I must trust Christ Jesus the Lord as my Saviour, love God with all my heart, soul and mind, and my neighbour as myself. They all say that I must be holy, humble, obedient, prayerful, pure, kindly, courageous and faithful. They all say that God is my Father and the Holy Spirit the inhabitant of my nature through the mystery of the new birth. And they all end with the cry for Christ's returning. I really don't need any more new versions, but I'll probably buy the next one that comes out. Maybe someday I'll find something sufficiently different to justify the expense. But I haven't up to now. To echo Tozer's last phrase... neither have I and I sometimes tease the users of other versions by saying "I am using the KJV. This is just a temporary measure... until I can find something better". I'll start some of my reasons in my next post.*A W Tozer uses both titles for the same version; The Authorized Version and The King James Version.
Why would anybody still use the KJV?
It's always an uncomfortable situation to be at odds with a man of God like Tozer. I suppose I can agree with what he wrote in that there have been no modern versions that compare to the KJV.The problem with this article is that he seems to either be ignorant of the facts, or ignoring the facts. Fact is the modern version movement (which began in 1881) uses a completely different school of manuscripts from almost all versions previous to 1881. The differences between the two schools is astronomical.He also praises translators of new versions for at least trying. Which ones? Wescott & Hort, and the Unitarians that were involved in starting the whole thing?Modern Versions are not simply the Bible put in modern language. That is deception. But that's what the publi$her$ want us to think.I love Tozer... what a wealth of knowledge he left for us. But I don't share his opinion on this topic.Krispy
philologos wrote:A W Tozer uses both titles for the same version; The Authorized Version and The King James Version.Sounds a bit like Leonard Ravenhill reading from the NIV (Never Improved Version, AKA - KJV).I like you find myself unable to decide which side to take in the KJV only debate, as I find myself wanting to argue against everyone (what was that verse about "contentions" again:-P). For me, it's not so much a matter of accuracy in translation, as accuracy in language. Like Tozer, I get a bit confused when reading the Amplified version, and find myself frustrated with preachers who insist on using it (I even heard a sermon delivered at an evangelistic outreach using the Amp) and confusing their hearers no end. I find that the KJV holds more "shades of meaning" due to the accuracy of language.One passage that illustrates this well is John 3, particularly vv2-3:2 Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent from God, for no man can do the miracles that thou doest except God be with him.3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.I once heard Greg Laurie expound this discourse using a newer translation. He pointed out, that Nichodemus' use of "we" instead of "I" reminded him of the people who start asking for advise by begining with, "A friend of mine has this problem..." Nichodemus was speaking a a Pharisee, not an individual. The thing that is lost in modern translations, is that Jesus' response is to Nichodemus as an individual.Consider also v7:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.This is where we really see an separation between Nichodemus and the Pharisees, in Jesus' words. In response to Nichodemus' "How can a man be born when he is old?..", Jesus responds by clarifying. He isn't saying that Nichodemus needs to be born again, as much as that all the Pharisees (even perhaps all humanity) need to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God.While this is only scratching the surface of this passage, my purpose for raising it, is to highlight something that is missed by removing "thee/thou" from the language, and replcing it with "you". These days it would be bad English to say "yous", when refering to a group of people, instead of "you". Well, once upon a time, it would have been bad English to use "you", when refering to an individual, instead of "thou". It's not that hard to grasp either. We use these rules all the time, when you consider comparing "I" with "we" and "me" with "us". Well al you need to do is compare "thou" with "I" as you compare "ye" with "we". And then "thee" with "me" and "you" with "us". Confused? That's okay, theirs always the modern translations until you get it.Granted I am oversimplifying things here, but I would much rather read a translation that one can readinly assertain the meaning of the English word used, without the confusion that the varying degrees of slang and sarcasm create.But hey, that's just me.:-)
Good posts.The clincher here for me was "The Comparative Charts" out there.I always compare whatever I'm reading to the Greek or whatever, so I've stayed with KJ for that and other reasons also.... Learning more about the minds of Westcott & Hort, and then what the different "Versions" of God's Word has done to the Church in general....But mostly... Look for and find the Comparative Charts ... they opened my eyes so wide, I thought they'd fall out of their place. Wow !!!I'm not in the Ruckmanite camp, but "linguistically", the KJ can't be topped, and only true comparative analysis can prove that out and not just opinion or the "easier to read" reasoning. I did read the NIV for 9 years, and before that other versions. Went back to KJ in the 1980's for the reasons above.Thanks for the thread RonB.Annie
The are two main issues as work in the creation of a version of the scriptures; the manuscript evidence and the philosophy of translation. Let's introduce them one at a time and I will concentrate on the New Testament. I will try to keep this fairly simple so that more folk can benefit from it.1. The manuscript evidence.We do not have any of the original documents. (these are usually called the autographs) In fact other than a few papyrus scraps our earliest manuscripts (mss) come from the era 300-400 AD. There are thousands of later mss but as far as I know there are not two which are identical. The question then is which is the most reliable and how do we make that decision? The scholars who work on this problem are known as Textual Critics and their studies are sometimes known as 'Lower Criticism'. (This must be distinguished from the rationalist 'Higher Criticism' of theologians who did not believe that they were handling the word of God and were out to prove their case) Originally all 'Textual Critics' believed they were handling the word of God and genuinely wanted to get back to the original, or as close to it as possible.The earlier 'textual critics' were men like Jerome(c390 AD) and Erasmus (1516 AD). If they had two manuscripts which differed they tried to discover which was authentic. Let's introduce a little logic to illustrate my point. If two statements purporting to be genuine words of the Scripture differ they cannot both be right, although they can both be wrong. (think about it. ;-)) The modern story of textual criticism begins with Erasmus not with Westcott and Hort. Erasmus was a famous renaissance scholar. He never became part of the Reformation and remained a loyal Catholic (he is sometimes described as 'once born') but his work was used by Martin Luther and William Tyndale. Erasmus used up to seven different manuscripts with variations in the text. He only had one copy of the Revelation and that had holes in it. Using these manuscripts Erasmus tried to construct what he believed the original 'autographs' had recorded. He created 'an eclectic' text ie a text which did not exist anyone in a single document. This provides us with an early caution when discussing Bible texts and translations. We often hear the phrase 'the Greek text'. There is really no such thing as "the Greek text". For the record, about 80% of the all ancient New Testament manuscripts agree as to what the 'autographs' said. The variations are usually of very little significance, occasional variants in spelling and the order of words. It is usually said that every orthodox doctrine of Christianity can be constructed from any one varient families. BUT here and there are differences which some believe have a deeper significance.That mention of 'families' deserves an explanation. When 'textual' scholars examine the variations in detail they sometimes find that different manuscripts agree with each other even though they may disagree with many other manuscripts. They conclude that this shows us links between those mss which agree. These groups are then called 'families' of mss. Erasmus' 7 mss were all from the same 'family'. This family likeness of Erasmus' mss is usually described as the 'Byzantine Textform'. Byzantium (Instanbul now) seems to have been the centre for these 'similar' manuscripts. Erasmus did not FIND the original Greek text, he attempted to reconstruct it from several sources. People who do what Erasmus did are called 'editors' in the study of textual criticism. There have been several 'editors' down through the years eg Erasmus 1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598 and Elzevir 1624. It was Elzevir who used the phrase 'the received text' to describe the Byzantine Textform family although the term is now used more widely. Again we must stress that there is no single 'Byzantine Greek text' and the 'received text' is NOT a mss but the work of editors who used many mss. Other 'family textforms' were known but Erasmus and those who followed him did not have the same confidence in them as they had in the Byzantine Textform/Received Text.That 'eclectic' (gathered from many) text originally produced by Erasmus and then modified by the other editors became the foundation for early translations into eg German and English bibles. Luther used it and so did Tyndale. So did the translators of the KJV. If those who believe the Received Text (Byzantine Textform) is the most reliable are right then the starting point of Luther's, Tyndale's and the KJV translators is a good foundation. They still have to work out their philosophy of translation but they would seem to be starting from the right place. If, as some believe, the Byzantine Textform is not the most reliable, then what?Towards the end of the 1800s a group of men decided that it was time to 'revise' the KJV. There work resulted in the English 'Revised Version' of 1881. They were a mix of scholars and included some passionate advocates of the Received Text and the KJV. One great KJV supporter was a man named Scriviner. He was a highly regarded scholar, pro KJV, and on the Revision Committee. An American committee worked on the same task and produced their own 'Revision' which is very similar to the English RV and is known as the ASV. The ASV is widely available in just about any kind of bible software you are likely to be using. I will say more about their 'philosophy of translation' in a later post but the reason they caused so much friction was that both committees were convinced that another 'family' of mss was more reliable than the Byzantine/Received Text. The were conflicts within the committees and people like Scrivener fought their corner well but in the end the prevailing view was that a group of manuscripts (mss) identified as the 'Western' family (this is Western as starting from Alexandria not Texas!!) In particular they laid heavy dependence on two ancient mss called 'codices' (in a book shape rather than rolled up papyrii) these two documents now venerated or demonized by different scholars are the Codex Vaticanus (so called because it was held in the Vatican library) and the Codex Sinaiticus (not a nasal spray for head colds ;-).. well this is pretty heavy going stuff, you deserve a little light relief) so called because it was found in a waste-paper basket in St Catherine's Monastry in Sinai. The main spokesmen for the English RV revisions committee were two men; Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort developed a theory of the way in which the text had been transmitted down the centuries. Their theory 'won the day' and became the prevailing scholastic view. I will pause and try to answer any question before moving on to the 'philosophy' of translation issue. This is a very simplistic history of what took place but the consequence is that differences between the KJV and the RV(ASV) are not the result of poor translators. The translators were very good at the job of translating. The problem arises because of the starting point of the underlying Greek text. If you were to draw a line from left to right and put the Received Text at the left end and the Western Text at the right end. The KJV would be over on the left and the RV(ASV) would be way over on the right. Since 1881 every new translation could be placed somewhere between those two extremities. The New American Standard Version would still be well over to the right but the NIV and the Good News bible would be further towards the left but not reaching the KJV. What this means is that subsequent 'editors' who have created new 'eclectic' texts have modified the extreme position held by Westcott and Hort. Even in the NIV and the Good News Bible the Received Text/Byzantine Textform has made a bit of a comeback. But it has to be said that the majority of academic scholars, even evangelical scholars, are still not convinced about the faithfulness of the Byzantine Textform. Many evangelicals are still convinced that the Western 'family' is a more reliable witness.What are the likes of you and me to say at such a time? Well...?
(this is Western as starting from Alexandria not Texas!!)You mean there really is life outside of the United States? :-P
Hi Ron,Is their any consensus on why there are variations between manuscripts? Is it error on the part of the copyists or additions and subtractions?Thanks,-Robert
Robert W's Is it error on the part of the copyists or additions and subtractions?Consensus? I think probably most would say that there have been aspects of all three at different times and degrees.
One small thought, if you were wanting to copy the best and the one that was outselling all others, which book would you try to put in a light that it was outdated and needed updating so you would have a better understanding of what the Author was saying. All along changing what the Author was saying, just for profits sake, for Mammon to increase his lies that were from the beginning, that is the difference between God and Mammon. In Christ: Phillip
Christinyou,I not personally 'sold' on the idea of a 'conspiracy' on this matter although I know many are.
In trying to be simple I think I have erred on the side of the simplistic in the last main post. For quick explanations of the different manuscript families, wikipedia is not a bad place to start. Just click for more accurate information.1. Byzantine textform.2. Alexandrian textform3. Western textform4. Caesarian textform5. Textus Receptus (the Received Text)
Don't mean to get off topic, But I have small pocket size bibles, a couple of medium size bibles that I have literally laying around. If anyone would like me to send them to you for your outreach purposes, I would be happy to free of charge shipping to North Americans, overseas I can only send one. If your a KJV only person, I don't want to send them to you, only to have them for a burning session. Some are KJV, Gideon, Living, etc.. PM me. Thanks.MOD: if this is soliciting please let me know, I will edit and replace with whats on topic. Thanks
Hi Ron, I don't believe that a conspiracy is what is going on with the Word. Conspiracy takes a hidden agenda and someone behind the scenes accomplishing a take over, or at least propaganda to change a situation or plan to fit the conspirator's will.I think God allows this just like He allows evil and put it in the works when His plan was designed that we might see the truth of what the difference is when it comes to Good and evil and what the cost is if we choose evil over good, that is Satan over God. I believe the Word of God is completely under His control and protection, and only He allows the counterfeit that the real thing is what we study and use as the truth. How do you detect a counterfeit, simply by knowing the real thing and the counterfeit won't stand up to the real thing.We know Satan's deception and lies and counterfeit is flooding the world and still there are true conversions and turning to the truth and Christ and The Father. Satan's alternate plan from the Plan of God has always been Satan's agenda from the beginning, I guess you could call it a conspiracy, but it will only work if God allows it to show the truth of God's plan in Christ Jesus which was before the foundation of the world and before man was ever put into the equation Christ in you the Hope of Glory. Ephesians 2:7-8 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Ephesians 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,IN Christ: Phillip
Ron, do you prefer the KJV because you feel the Byzantine texts are more reliable, or is it just a matter of tradition and the simple fact that you enjoy it more due to the beauty of Elizabethan English? Also, have you written anything in defense of the KJV that you could disclose?
Let a man study prayerfully any of the generally recognized versions, done by proficient and responsible scholars, and the Spirit will quicken the truth to his heart and lead him toward the ends God has in view for him. Almost everything depends upon his response to the Spirit's workings. While it is important that the translations be accurate and faithful, yet better versions do not make better men.What makes the word of God living and active? The translators? The manuscripts?
What makes the word of God living and active? Hi markm,There are answers to this question in abundance, in the thread 'Born Again By What Means', (still active in this forum). Best for you to start at the beginning of it, as it's well-focused there.As to the other two questions about translators and manuscripts, that thread doesn't touch on them; but, my own comment, (not having done the study many others have), is that once one is born again, one can tell whether the translators knew the Lord, or were working without insight from Him. This is abundantly clear, when comparing simple Tyndale - a man who translated scripture knowing he would probably die for doing so (That's passion!) - with what has come after. (OK, I know that's a sweeping generalisation...... Young also captures God's heart, despite the bumpiness of the English prose.)
Hi Ya'll,In 1978 when I was newly born again, I asked my pastor (Steve Byrd, Berean Baptist Church, Fayetteville, NC) which translation of the Bible I should use?He gave me this sage advice, which I have passed on to others throughout the years. He said: "Howard, There's enough salvation in John 3:16 for the whole world. I personally prefer and use the King James version, but the best translation of the Bible, is the one that you'll read."I (Clutch)read the AV the most, but use other modern translations, and paraphrases for emphasis.After all, I am a simple man, and when you find something that works for you.....stay with it. 8-) Blessings,Clutch
...for good reason, it is a reliable translation. The whole translation debate is quite wearisome. I am certainly not of the kjv-only camp. The information emerging from this camp is unedifying and misinformative. The NIV is good if you want a good thought-for-thought translation. The KJV and particularly the NASB Update are good word-for-word or literal translations of scripture. For the most part, none of us are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic scholars. Threre is no need to split hairs over such matters. Christ is coming brothers and sisters. We ought to prepare ourselves for His second Advent. :-)
There is a verse in the King James Version that troubles me:Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.When I read this, I think to myself: Why would I want to read a Bible that calls God an "it".Our great creeds say that the Holy Spirit is God.
BeYeDoers Ron, do you prefer the KJV because you feel the Byzantine texts are more reliable, or is it just a matter of tradition and the simple fact that you enjoy it more due to the beauty of Elizabethan English? Also, have you written anything in defense of the KJV that you could disclose? My apologies for taking so long to get back to this. To answer the last question first... yes, and I will get to them soon... I promise.As to the first question... I do have more confidence in the Byzantine Textform and am particularly 'annoyed' about the illogic of Westcott and Hort's theories of textual transmission. I think if I had been in their lectures I might have found myself on my feet crying 'look at the king... he's not wearing any clothes'. ;-)As to the second part of the first question ;-) The KJV is actually formal Jacobean rather than Elizabethan. The language was a little archaic even in 1611. 'Thee' and 'thou' was already passed from ordinary speech so the KJV was always a bit formal and 'grand'. Part of its specification was to produce a thing of beauty; this is not always helpful although it may sound pleasant. The Greek of the NT was not 'beautiful classical Greek' but was Koine (common - market place) Greek. It is the truth which is beautiful and powerful rather than the linguistic style. The Message bible is hammered by most people but it has a point when it says that Koine Greek was 'the word on the street' rather than the flowing oratory of the academics. The KJV is more 'beautiful' than Tyndale which can be a bit rugged, but they did sharpen some of Tyndale's language a little in the KJV. The KJV translators were slightly more 'literal equivalence' than Tyndale.more soon...
I think if I had been in their lectures I might have found myself on my feet crying 'look at the king... he's not wearing any clothes'.Hmmm. This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world. :-P
This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world.Really, Danny Kaye, Hans Christian Anderson? A foolish king was scammed by a sharp tailor who told him that he had invented a super light cloth and that he could make the king a suit of clothes. The tailor told the king that the clothes could only be seen by intelligent people. He persuaded the king to wear the non-existent suit and explained to the courtiers that only intelligent people could see it. The whole court, of course, claimed that they could see it and that it was a beautiful suit of clothes.A small boy had not heard the propaganda and when he saw the king he exclaimed (in the Danny Kaye version)Look at the king, look at the kingThe king is in his al-together, he's altogeth as naked as the day that he was born...The phrase as I used it was my way of 'calling the bluff' of Westcott and Hort and saying 'your theory is unfounded'.. The problem with 'textual criticism' is that only the very intelligent can understand it!Do I understand it? Of course. :-? Here's the official version; Click Here.
The are two main issues as work in the creation of a version of the scriptures; the manuscript evidence and the philosophy of translation. Let's introduce them one at a time and I will concentrate on the New Testament. I will try to keep this fairly simple so that more folk can benefit from it.1. The manuscript evidence.We do not have any of the original documents. (these are usually called the autographs) In fact other than a few papyrus scraps our earliest manuscripts (mss) come from the era 300-400 AD. There are thousands of later mss... Let's move on to the second issue, although we really only touched the first...2. The Philosophy of TranslationOnce we have decided on the actual text we are going to translate we then have the problem of how we are going to translate it.Let me show the problem by reference to two stories and a quote from a book.Story 1. The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work in Papua New Guinea. In their first steps they usually translate some saying of Jesus. One of the chosen sayings was “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” (Luke 11:11 KJVS)Simple question? Well it might have been except that the PNG tribe into whose language this saying was translated immediately said 'Yes!'. Woah, said the missionary, wrong answer...Explanation? The area of PNG where the translators were working was very hilly and the streams were fast flowing mountain streams; there were no lakes, or seas. The consequence was that the fish from the stream were skinny, boney, things which were no good for man nor beast. But snake on the other hand is a major source of protein and nutrition. So... if your son asked you for a fish would you give him a snake? Of course you would, if you could.Ah, you say, you just have to translate it 'living poisonous snake' but if you do you have just 'added' to the inspired scripture. ;-)Story 2. The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work among tribal peoples in Brazil. They too were translating some basic sayings of Jesus into the tribal language. Their problem arose from “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51 KJVS) The first problem, of course, was the society in which they were working had absolutely no concept of bread. Well, reasoned the translators, we just substitute the major staple of the local diet; manioc. This is where the 2nd problem arose. The particular tribe divided all life into two simple categories; living and cooked. Every plant and creature was either living or cooked; there were no other options. To get the 'living bread' combination the only way was to refer to 'uncooked manioc'. The problem is that uncooked 'bitter' manioc is poisonous. ;-)Any solution to the problems raised here will result in a translation which is 'dynamic' rather than 'literal'. Translations then will have a 'philosophy of translation' which will lie somewhere within the spectrum of absolutely literal, or extremely dynamic. Some Si-ers will be familiar with The Message. It is a translation which adopts the philosophy of 'dynamic equivalence'. This is The Golden Verse:1"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. John 3:16 - The Message Disgraceful cries the crowd. ;-) OK, let's go to the other extreme, 'literal equivalence'."For so loved the God the world that the Son his the only begotten he gave that each the one believing towards him not may perish but have life eternal - John 3:16 word for word translation Now if you were called to the bedside of a dying man which option would you go for?But 'dynamic equivalence' is not without its problems either. This is an excerpt from The English Bible & its Origins: Richard Purkis Angel Press 1988 isbn 0-947785-23-X page 56 in which he describes the difficulties of a bible translator.... and quotes with approval the philosophy behind modern Bible translationDynamic EquivalenceModern translators of the Bible have worked out a very simple (but certainly not easy) method called Dynamic Equivalence. It works like this:A. Original word/phrase (Greek/Hebrew)B. All the ideas which this containsC. Those ideas translated into the other languageD. The best word or phrase to convey the main idea of the originalLet's take the example with with we opened the chapterA. Original Words (Greek, Luke 18:13) etypten (he beat) eis (on) sic to stethos (the breast) autou (of himselfB. Ideas behind those words 1. he was sorry for what he had done. 2. he showed that sorrow in an action 3. he hit himself to prove that he wanted to punish and change himself 4. he hit himself over his heart (which throughout the Bible represents the understanding).C. These ideas are then transferred into the Chokwe language. (West Zambia Language)D. The best natural equivalent in Chokwe becomes "he beat his brows" (to show a change of mind and thinking).The translation that has followed this method most carefully, is the American Bible Society's Good News Bible.This version is now being used as the basis for new translation into many languages of the world.Now what are we to make of this? It shows clearly how the modern method of translations imports the translator's current understanding into the text. What happened to the idea of "sorrow" which the translator apparently thought was of first importance?Here is a little experiment for you. :-) Try it! The Greek verb is in the Imperfect Tense which means "a repeated or continuous action in the past". Try repeatedly 'beating your brow' and saying "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner". Now try repeatedly 'beating your breast' and saying "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner".Which do you think is the best translation?
Philologos... you need to get all of this together and publish a book on this topic. You have a knack for simplifying this stuff without loosing the substance.Krispy
Language DegredationOver time are language changes words mean different things , the language of english is not improving, a word for beautiful in old english would be used, would today be used as slander.I wish I could list a whole lot of engblish words that have changed meaning the problems is that god is an unchanging god and he does not change his vocab! yet he reveals us things in language about himselfWith new versions you do not only have the problem that an entirely new language is used even between years, because the Oxford dictionary adds new words to its dictionary such as ipod.Art Katz is right when he says that being prophetic that it is our duty to use proper english!What we miss is the purity of the older versionsThe thing that I love about the bible is unchangableness. With newer versions what they miss in the heart of god! They concentrate on the language rather than the god of the bible. Dynamic Equivilance versus AccuracyWhat is the measure of accuracy? How can you measure the difference between one accurate bible and another one. It is a matter of opinion! This is where the bible translators need to pray about what words, they use. Dynamic Equivilance is also a recent concept, the problem is that as language is always changing something that may be correct one day, may be not correct the next!!! Also they may not know properly about the culture when the bible is writtenJohn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of meI know very little about this subject but what I have read I know that I need Jesus. Ron is an expert on this subject!Hebrewdoing a tiny bit of hebrew is that it is so much more expressive and words or even tenses. When going back to the english you realise how much you miss. Battling for people to readIt is hard enough to get people to read and fight illituarcy in this culture with media devices getting more and more used books are slowly being either dumbed down. This is a big problemI have so much more to say! I just dont know how to say it!DOm
TaKa's When I read this, I think to myself: Why would I want to read a Bible that calls God an "it".Taka, this is difficult to explain. Are you familiar with the way that many languages have genders attached to nouns? The KJV translation here is really a quirk of 'old English' and the way we have translated from one language to another.English does not have these gender nouns so our personal pronouns 'he, she, it' do have human gender implications which is why this makes you uncomfortable.In many languages the personal pronouns do not really tell you the 'human gender' of the noun. So that because the Greek word for Spirit is of 'neuter' gender, the personal pronoun (KJV 'itself') is in the neuter gender. (Gender, of course, has nothing to do with sexual gender.) To a native reader that fact that the personal pronoun is 'neuter' would not register in the way it does for us. Mark Twain wrote a very funny piece about learning German that shows an English speaker struggling with grammatical genders. Here's an excerptEvery noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:"Gretchen.Wilhelm, where is the turnip?Wilhelm.She has gone to the kitchen.Gretchen.Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?Wilhelm.It has gone to the opera."To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.A German would probably be completely confused by Twain because the German knows that grammatical gender has nothing at all to do with sexual gender. In Biblical Greek what looks like the personal pronoun 'his' actually means 'his/hers/its'; not either but all of them at the same time. Similarly what looks like the personal pronoun 'its' actually means 'his/hers/its': all at the same time. However when people try to translate 'carefully' you can get these anomalies. Just remember that in the original language the word that is translated 'itself' actually means 'hisself/herself/itself' all at the same time.Just to make it even more complicated the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine gender! So is the word for 'soul'. This has sometimes caused people to believe that every soul is feminine. The verse often quoted is “My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 KJVS) But this, like your verse, is a trying too hard to be literal. The modern versions avoid this;\t“My soul shall make its boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear of it and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 NKJV)“My soul shall make its boast in Jehovah: the meek shall hear, and rejoice.” (Psa 34:2 DRBY)Does any of that make sense? :-o edit: I came across an interesting illustration of this problem this morning when reading Rev 2.“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” (Rev 2:5 KJVS) This is another translation oddity. The word 'lampstand' is feminie gender. If the translator's had been consistent they would have translated this 'her place' but as it is the modern translations have gone for 'its place'.
Philologos said:"edit: I came across an interesting illustration of this problem this morning when reading Rev 2.“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” (Rev 2:5 KJVS)This is another translation oddity. The word 'lampstand' is feminie gender. If the translator's had been consistent they would have translated this 'her place' but as it is the modern translations have gone for 'its place'."xxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:The KJV has it right. The reason? The Place where the lampstand is located is HIS (Christ's) place (which is the Church). That is why it is masculine.The textural critics and the modern "translators" miss this understanding, that is provided by the Holy Spirit.This is exactly why I trust and study the King James Version of the Bible. I suggest it to others for the same reason.God bless,Stever
Philologos said:"Just to make it even more complicated the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine gender! So is the word for 'soul'. This has sometimes caused people to believe that every soul is feminine. The verse often quoted is “My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 KJVS)But this, like your verse, is a trying too hard to be literal. The modern versions avoid this;“My soul shall make its boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear of it and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 NKJV)“My soul shall make its boast in Jehovah: the meek shall hear, and rejoice.” (Psa 34:2 DRBY)Does any of that make sense?"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response to Philologos: Have you ever considered that we are ALL the bride of Christ, both male and female? Perhaps this is a truth that will be revealed to us at the rapture? How can I as a man be the "bride of Christ?As a believer in God and in the power of His Holy Spirit---I would never change what has been written in the Bible (the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit) in any part of the Bible anywhere. However, "Textural Critics" and Hebrew & Greek "Scholars", starting with Westcott and Hort as well as the "Textural Critics" behind all of the newer Bible Versions today find no difficulty whatsoever in changing anything that confuses them. What is missing in their work? Perhaps their fear of God, as well as the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?God bless,Stever
The KJV has it right. The reason? The Place where the lampstand is located is HIS (Christ's) place (which is the Church). That is why it is masculine.Stever.This is nonsense and only shows that you have no idea how other langauges than English work. This kind of answer is pointless.
As a believer in God and in the power of His Holy Spirit---I would never change what has been written in the Bible (the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit) in any part of the Bible anywhere. We are not talking about the inspiration of the Bible but the infallibility of a translation. This answer all shows that you just don't understand the way that other languages work. You and Mark Twain would have got on well together, although he knew he was joking.
philologos wrote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:No, not really. You know just as well as I do what we are talking about. I believe that we have the preservation of the Scriptures in the King James version, the Textus Receptus. You do not believe in the preservation, but are involved in the restoration of the Scriptures.The divide between us is as wide as the divide between heaven and hell.I believe that the Bible has all wisdom. You do not have that same belief.The Bible tells us:1 Cor. 1 tells us:"19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:"xxxxxxxxxxxxxI am not a textural critic and you are a textural critic- hence the divide between us.Sincerely,SteverI am not a textural critic and you are a textural critic- hence the divide between usAs a believer in God and in the power of His Holy Spirit---I would never change what has been written in the Bible (the entire Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit) in any part of the Bible anywhere. We are not talking about the inspiration of the Bible but the infallibility of a translation. This answer all shows that you just don't understand the way that other languages work. You and Mark Twain would have got on well together, although he knew he was joking.
philologos wrote:"We are not talking about the inspiration of the Bible but the infallibility of a translation. This answer all shows that you just don't understand the way that other languages work. You and Mark Twain would have got on well together, although he knew he was joking."Stever's response:PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?THE KEY ISSUE IS PRESERVATIONEven in fundamental circles the issue relating to the various modern translations of the Bible is controversial. It is not merely the question of "inspiration". The crux is that of preservation. Has God preserved His Word perfect for us today, or was it only perfect in the "original" autographs? If God has not preserved His Word perfectly, we must assume that we are preaching and teaching from a book that is not completely reliable as the "original" autographs are no longer accessible.If we believe that the Bible is still the inerrant Word of God, we must then deal with the problem of determining which version is the true Word of the Living God. Logic dictates that two opposing statements cannot both be true (we reject the Hegelian Dialectic). Therefore, two contradicting "Bibles" cannot both be the inerrant Word of God. I proclaim that the the "King James" or "Authorized Version" is the Word of God translated into the English language to the extent that it is the final authority in all matters of conduct and faith. Furthermore, as the modern translations since 1881 often differ from the King James Bible in wording as well as doctrine, and since two conflicting texts cannot be infallible, perfect and inerrant, the reader must of necessity make a choice. That which follows is intended to assist the seeker to clearly discern the truth of the matter for himself.SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FOR MY BELIEFGod's Word tells us:"Beloved, ... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith ... (Jude 3)""II Tim. 2:23-26: But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.""That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph.4:14-15)"THE ISSUE - JUST WHAT IS AT STAKE?God teaches us that the purpose of Scripture is to lead us to Christ and then to guide our lives (John 5:39-40). God did not give the Scriptures for the purpose of scholarly intellectual exercise. Yet that is what they are being used for by many. This is one of the major problems plaguing the Church today. As we enter this study, we need to consider carefully the following questions: 1.Would God inspire a text and then allow it to become lost?Within our diverse denominational backgrounds are found various confessions of faith. These statements of faith concerning the Holy Scriptures, particularly within conservative evangelical backgrounds, always say something to the effect that we believe that God gave the original Scriptures inerrant. We profess to believe in the originals, that they were divinely inspired by God – God breathed. Now we say that, intending it as a statement of faith, but we shall soon come to see that it is in reality a statement of unbelief! This study is designed to bring us to grips with this issue.But first, the second question:2.\tIf God did inspire a text, would He not preserve it? The New Testament was written in Greek whereas the Old Testament was mostly authored in Hebrew. It may surprise many to learn that there are no original manuscripts of the Bible available today. The Old Testament scribes destroyed the scrolls upon which Scripture was written as they became worn, and "dog eared" from so much handling. When they copied out a new one, they destroyed the old so that the earliest Old Testament manuscript now in existence is dated about 900 A.D. This is called the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It was the earliest witness to the text of the Old Testament that we possessed until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain some parts of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Likewise, We possess no "original" New Testament manuscripts – none of the "autographs" which the apostles wrote have been preserved. This brings us to the third question.3. Could we expect counterfeits of the originals to be in circulation? Is there someone who has always hated God's Word, wanted to destroy it, and has attempted to cloud man's mind and heart about its validity? In other words, as we read the Bible, is there any evidence that somebody has founded a "Yea, has God said" society? According to Genesis 3:1, Bible corruption began with Satan. Satan is the original Bible revisor. When he confronted Eve in the garden, he added to God's Word, he subtracted, he diluted and finally substituted his own doctrine for that which God had said. We find this occurring today. People are trying to add books to the Old and subtract words from the New Testament. Nothing has changed. We need to understand that the devil is promoting this continuing attack on the Word of God. THE ORIGINAL "AUTOGRAPHS" AND "PRESERVATION"We are expected to believe in the "INSPIRATION" without believing in the "PRESERVATION" of the Scriptures. The “Textural Critics are asking us to believe in the inspiration of the "originals" without believing in the preservation of the text of the Scriptures. It is a statement of unbelief when we say that we only believe that the original autographs were inspired. What we really are saying is that we do not believe that we have the infallible Word of God on this planet, or at least in our hands, at this moment. Let us consider that statement scripturally:"14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim.3:14-17)."Here God tells us His purposes in giving us the Scriptures: "... for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."Do we actually believe that God allowed them to become lost after giving them? If so, how could He use them to accomplish these purposes?Now we know that we do not have an original. The question is has God preserved His Word – the original text – although not the original piece of paper or vellum on which it may have been written?That is the question and I do have the answer if there is any interest.God bless,Stever
The question is has God preserved His Word – the original text – although not the original piece of paper or vellum on which it may have been written?Yes, but not in a single docuement.
The divide between us is as wide as the divide between heaven and hell.Your posts are becoming more ridiculous all the time.I am not a textural critic and you are a textural critic- hence the divide between us.Sometimes I wonder whether you have any understanding at all of what you are talking about. The TR is the work of a 'Textual Critic'; there is no such Greek manuscript as the TR. It was 'compiled' first by Erasmus and subsequently by others who have continually improved Erasmus' original work.You are mounting a magnificent defence for a fiction.
Stever said:"I am not a textural critic and you are a textural critic- hence the divide between us."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Philologos replied:"Sometimes I wonder whether you have any understanding at all of what you are talking about. The TR is the work of a 'Textual Critic'; there is no such Greek manuscript as the TR. It was 'compiled' first by Erasmus and subsequently by others who have continually improved Erasmus' original work.You are mounting a magnificent defence for a fiction."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response to the above: I will stick with Erasmus, who had all of the manuscripts, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers, where 95% of the Gospel (New Testment) is repeated in their letters to each other. He used these letters to compare the manuscripts.That is the Word that we have- that the KING JAMES VERSION stays true to. Erasmus was NOT about the business of replacing the feminine reference to the Holy Spirit, or the feminine reference to the spirit within each of us (both male and female people) with an "it", that had been there for 1500 years. You (and other "Textural Critics"), on the other hand, based upon your keen intellect and most perfect understanding of language have no problem with doing exactly that.The KJV is the best we have, and Christ said that not one jot or one title will be missing from His Law until heaven and earth pass away, and all is fulfilled.I will take Erasmus and Christ anyday of the week. Westcott and Hort were not the first to try and change the word. Satan in the Garden was the first, and it still continues to this day.God bless,Stever
what are Comparative Charts?
Stevers I will stick with Erasmus, who had all of the manuscripts, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers, where 95% of the Gospel (New Testment) is repeated in their letters to each other. He used these letters to compare the manuscripts.More nonsense. Where do you get this stuff from?Erasmus consulted only a handful of manuscripts, most of quite late date. For the Gospels he used mainly a single manuscript of the fifteenth century. For Revelation the one manuscript he used was defective at the end, and Erasmus supplied the last six verses by a translation from the Latin into his own imperfect Greek. Erasmus appears from his own testimony to have had the use of only four manuscripts, and these incomplete, with some hasty gleanings from others by himself or by his friends.I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that Erasmus had "all of the manuscripts, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers".I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that 95% of the New Testament is repeated in the letters of the early Church fathers.That is the Word that we have- that the KING JAMES VERSION stays true to. Erasmus was NOT about the business of replacing the feminine reference to the Holy Spirit, or the feminine reference to the spirit within each of us (both male and female people) with an "it", that had been there for 1500 years. You (and other "Textural Critics"), on the other hand, based upon your keen intellect and most perfect understanding of language have no problem with doing exactly that.What on earth are you talking about?I will take Erasmus and Christ anyday of the week. It is one of the great sadnesses of Reformation History to note that Erasmus never 'took Christ' but distanced himself from the Reformers and stayed true to Rome.
Stever wrote:
That is the Word that we have- that the KING JAMES VERSION stays true to. Erasmus was NOT about the business of replacing the feminine reference to the Holy Spirit, or the feminine reference to the spirit within each of us (both male and female people) with an "it", that had been there for 1500 years. You (and other "Textural Critics"), on the other hand, based upon your keen intellect and most perfect understanding of language have no problem with doing exactly that.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxPhilologos responsde to the above:What on earth are you talking about?xxxxxxxxxxxxxStevers response to Philologos:Several quotes back, you wrote the following on this thread:"Just to make it even more complicated the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine gender! So is the word for 'soul'. This has sometimes caused people to believe that every soul is feminine. The verse often quoted is “My soul shall make HER boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 KJVS)But this, like your verse, is a trying too hard to be literal. The MODERN VERSIONS AVOID THIS;“My soul shall make ITS boast in the LORD; The humble shall hear of IT and be glad.” (Psa 34:2 NKJV)“My soul shall make ITS boast in Jehovah: the meek shall hear, and rejoice.” (Psa 34:2 DARBY)Does any of that make sense? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever continues:What I was referring to is the above. The textural critic, who is probably only trying to "help God out" with his knowledge and understanding of language, CHANGES Scripture to coincide with what he thinks it ought to be. Above we have a statement from David, totally inspired by the Holy Spirit, that refers to David's soul as SHE. IN FACT, THE SAME WORD APPEARS APPROXIMATELY 473 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT-NEPHESH.It appears as SHE in the KJV, yet Darby, Westcott & Hort, the NIV and ALL OF THE OTHER NEWER "VERSIONS HAVE CHANGED THE "SHE" TO AN "IT".BY CHANGING IT HERE, IN PSALMS 34:2, THEY (TEXCTURAL "CRITICS") HAVE CHANGED IT 472 TIMES IN EVERY OTHER REFERENCE TO THE SAME WORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT-NEPHESH. THEY HAVE CHANGED IT FROM "SHE" TO "IT" WITH THIS ONE CHANGE IN PSALMS! (NEPHESH appears 414 times in the Old Testament as SOUL. Soul's [NEPHESH] appears 1 time, and Souls [NEPHESH] appears 58 times- for a total of 473 references)That is what is wrong with all of the newer versions---we have people (textural critics and "Bible Scholars") who are quite educated and truly think that it is their mission in life to FIX it. The problem is, IT DOES NOT NEED FIXING. It was placed there by David, God's anointed, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit and it should be left alone.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's conclusion:This is what I was referring to. When I read God's Word and I am told that some day the entire body of Christ, both male and female, are going to be the BRIDE OF CHRIST, I have an inkling of understanding because there is a reference to that fact in the Old Testament --ONE THAT THE TEXTURAL CRITICS HAVE ERASED AND REPLACED IT WITH HUMAN ERROR IN ALL OF THE NEWER VERSIONS. Our Souls (both male and female souls) are all referred to as being female by the God who made us. Do I understand that fact in my fallen state? NO, I really don't but I don't want ANYONE changing God's Words to suit their own fallen understanding either.By trying to "fix" what the textural critic assumes is error does nothing more than steal God's very words from HIS OWN WORD TO US.THAT IS WHY I RELY ON THE KJV!God bless,Steverp.s. I will answer the remainder of your challenge in other postsThe New Testament is the Old Testament revealed!!!
Steve,Just a question, but what makes you think that the King James Version of the Bible is a divinely inspired translation and is absolutely correct in every single aspect of its translation? What about English versions prior to its publishing?Also, if I were to be a missionary in another society, what translations in those countries should I consult when preaching, that are also divinely inspired?Also, should I find myself one day in another country that doesn't have a copy of the Scriptures in its language, if I undertook to make a translation suitable for that people, would its translation be divinely inspired?And if I were to try to make a copy of the Scriptures available to them, should I translate it from the original languages into their native tongue, or should I only attempt to translate it from the KJV English translation?
May I make the request that we return this thread to its original intent: phililogos intelligibly presenting why he prefers the KJV over modern translations? If Stever wishes to continue with his unintelligle drivel and others wish to refute and rebut in a pointless attempt to help him see that the only real "substance" he presents is tradition of man, move it back to his original nonsensical thread "Bible quiz-are you ready?"gracias(please note: Stever, I am not attacking you as a person or your faith, just your arguments on this issue. I love you and respect you as a brother and I'm sure you have much to offer the children of God.)
BeYeDoers wrote:May I make the request that we return this thread to its original intent: phililogos intelligibly presenting why he prefers the KJV over modern translations? If Stever wishes to continue with his unintelligle drivel and others wish to refute and rebut in a pointless attempt to help him see that the only real "substance" he presents is tradition of man, move it back to his original nonsensical thread "Bible quiz-are you ready?"graciasxxxxxxxxxxxStevers response:I was replying to a question that Philologos asked me, specifically:"What on earth are you talking about?"My reply was directed to him. Sorry if it is of no interest to you, but I have only responded to his request.God bless,Stever"The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament Revealed
Stever's Above we have a statement from David, totally inspired by the Holy Spirit, that refers to David's soul as SHE. IN FACT, THE SAME WORD APPEARS APPROXIMATELY 473 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT-NEPHESH.It appears as SHE in the KJV, yet Darby, Westcott & Hort, the NIV and ALL OF THE OTHER NEWER "VERSIONS HAVE CHANGED THE "SHE" TO AN "IT".BY CHANGING IT HERE, IN PSALMS 34:2, THEY (TEXCTURAL "CRITICS") HAVE CHANGED IT 472 TIMES IN EVERY OTHER REFERENCE TO THE SAME WORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT-NEPHESH. THEY HAVE CHANGED IT FROM "SHE" TO "IT" WITH THIS ONE CHANGE IN PSALMS! (NEPHESH appears 414 times in the Old Testament as SOUL. Soul's [NEPHESH] appears 1 time, and Souls [NEPHESH] appears 58 times- for a total of 473 references)You just haven't understood any of it, have you? The fact that a word has a feminine gender in a language DOES NOT MEAN that the object has a feminine sex! To try to make it so as you are doing is ridiculous. Gesenius notes that Hebrew, like all Semitic languages, recognizes only two genders in the noun, a masculine and a feminine. Inanimate objects are abstract ideas, which other languages sometimes indicate by the neuter, are regarded in Hebrew either as masculine or feminine, more of the latter. So Hebrew has two grammatical genders and Greek has 'three' (the neuter)The use of the feminine gender for 'soul' has NOTHING at all to do with its sexual gender. In French a 'door' is feminine; in GENDER not in sexuality. In Hebrew the word 'nephesh' is feminine; in GENDER, not is sexuality. Phew, this is hard work.THAT IS WHY I RELY ON THE KJV! You are not relying on the KJV at all, and to claim it is to defame that noble work. You are relying on your arrogant and ignorant prejudices. I am reminded of a comment of Wesley who met with certain sundry men 'who knew everything and consequently learned nothing'.This will be my last comment on your crazy contributions.
I was replying to a question that Philologos asked me, specifically:No Stever, you entered this discussion on your own accord on 2/12/2006 at 7:27am. It was your tiring and tireless KJV-only postings from that moment on that prompted phililogos to reply to your ludicrous assertions.
The topic of this thread is not an attack, but a defense of the KJV. Please keep all questions and comments directed in such a manner as to promote the futherance of this topic. Ron a.k.a. Philologos, has provided us with a worthy study. Any posts that are clearyly attempting to hijack this thread will be subject to deletion by the Mods. The participation by all is welcome and encouraged, but please STAY ON TOPIC. Thanks:)In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey (Putting on his Mod cap)
I just got back to look at this thread.Amos asked on page 3 I think, about the Charts that I had mentioned, I believe.It can be found on this site page ...http://watch-unto-prayer.org/scriptures.htmlBut do not take what is written between each sectioned off parts of this chart as my feelings.The Chart itself must be purchased and this was the only site where I could find it.They do do some good work on the KJV though, but there are other beliefs on there that I don't go with.But the Chart itself is good and some of the KJV linked pages may have some good stuff in them.
Amos asked on page 3 I think, about the Charts that I had mentioned, I believe.Has anyone seen the various versions plotted on a graph against the two most important criteria of Byzantine Textform (TR) v The WH hypothesis as the 'y' axis and Literal Equivalence v Dynamic Equivalence as the 'x' axis.I did one myself some years ago but can't find it.The advantage of this kind of 'comparison chart' is that you can see at a glance where the versions stand 'overall' in relation to each other.
Here's an answer to my own request. The Comparison Chart is not in the form of a graph but it would be easy to plot one from this data.This chart shows 'three' issues (Translation Characteristics) which affect the various Bible versions; which are shown in three columns:1. Formal (1 to X) - it scores the translation philosophy on a scale of 1 to X with X being the highest. In other words the higher the number the more 'literal equivalence' or 'word-for-word' is at work in the translation.2. C=Committee; I=Individual - A committee can bring balance, but sometimes an individual translator's contribution (eg Tyndale) adds something quite unique to the translation.3. M=Modern text; T=Textus Receptus - the author has chosen an 'either/or' score here. This is a little too simplistic as some modern translations take the TR much more seriously even though they may be predominantly 'Modern'. In this sense the old RV/ASV from 1881-1901 would be extremely 'Modern' with the NASV more a combination of 'TR' and 'Modern'. I will keep searching for a graph!EDITHere's another chart but this one does not show the underlying Greek texts.WARNING: These charts and graphs are all 'highly subjective' being the opinion of the chart creator.
The KJV (previously known in the UK as the AV) was translated by a committee appointed by James VI of Scotland when he became king of England as James I. (are you still following this? ;-)) James wanted to unite the two separate countries under his reign. If you have seen the royal standard you will have seen both a lion (England) and a Unicorn (Scotland) this was James' design. The 'Union Jack' was two flags, the St George Cross of England (red cross on white background) and the St Andrew Cross (white diagonal cross on blue background). This flag became known as the 'Union Jack' after James (common name Jack) who designed it. The current UK flag, known as the Union Flag (not the Union Jack) also has St Patrick's Cross (red diagonal on a white background). King James, as you see, was determined to unite his two separate kingdoms. He was also determined to unite his two peoples under one Christian system and when a new translation was suggested he jumped at the chance of creating a translation which would do the job. At that time 'Christians' were of many 'kinds'. At one extreme there were those who wanted to revert to Rome and at the other extreme 'sectaries' or 'Separatists' who believed, not in a State Church, but in 'gathered assemblies'. These latter included anabaptists, and various groups which were much less structured. James chose his translation committee by gathering some of the leading scholars of the day together. He then eliminated from his committee people from both extremes; ie he eliminated any possible contributions from pro-catholics or from anabaptists. This ensured that there would be a wide consensus among his translators but that 'baptist and anabaptist' and even presbyterians would not influence his committee.There is an interesting document which was originally part of the translation which is usually called 'the epistle dedicatory'. All "AV/KJV" bibles originally had this as a preface. This Epistle Dedicatory gives a very clear impression of the relationship of the committee to King James. Most modern readers will feel uncomfortable with it. Its polite formalities and sycophantic tendencies sit ill at ease with our modern day. I will quote some parts in order to make my point....since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of illmeaning and discontented person, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labours shall more honour and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;... You will see that the translators expected criticism from 'Popish Persons' ie Roman Catholics AND from 'selfconceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil' ie those scurrilous anabaptists who believed that the Spirit could teach them what the scripture meant. It is safe to judge, I think, that almost every post-er here on SI would have 'qualified' as 'a self-conceited person running their own ways'.This preservation of the Status Quo became part of the King's purpose in the AV/KJV translation, and we do need to keep this in mind when we are trying to understand what the scripture has to say about 'authority'. King James believed in the divine right of Kings. The first paragraph of the 'epistle dedicatory' refers to the 'unsettled state' of England on the death of Elizabeth I. James was determined to 'settle' it and he believed that he had God's authority to do so. The translators in this 'epistle dedicatory' professed that 'all your Majesty's loyal and religious people'... 'bless You in their hearts, as that sanctified Person, who, under God, is the immediate Author of their true happiness.' 'all' that is with the exception of those anabaptists and presbyterians, some of whom were in His Majesty's prisons. One of James' chief translators was Lancelot Andrewes, he was also one of the inquisitors of 'separatists' in prison. The record of one such 'interview' with Henry Barrow still exists. I could quote it but it is really a disgrace. Andrewes accused him of having a 'private spirit' by which he meant that Barrow would not submit to the 'church's interpretation' of scriptures. Ultimately Barrow was executed at Tyburn for denying the authority of the bishops, for denying the holiness of the Anglican church and its liturgy and denying the monarch's authority over it.The tendency of the AV/KJV is undergird the Status Quo whenever possible (and sometimes when it was not possible). Here is a list of Bible references where we can find the idea of 'ministering in the priest's office' - Ex 28:1,3-4,41; 29:1,44; 30:30; 31:10; 35:19; 39:41; 40:13,15; Lev 7:35; 16:32; Num 3:3. In each of these references the original simply uses the word 'priest' as a 'verb' in other words they 'priested'. The idea of 'office' is foreign to the revelation. The idea is further supported in the NT “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.” (1Tim 3:10 KJVS)This whole phrase 'use the office of a deacon' is the translation of a single Greek verb 'diakoneO' which means 'to serve'. The phrase 'the office of' is found frequently in the AV/KJV, Ex 1:16; Num 4:16; Ezek 44:13; 1Tim 3:1,10,13; Heb 7:5, and is never there in the original.One of James' pet hates was the Geneva Bible. He hated the marginal comments and was determined to eliminate this 'puritan bible'. He hated the kind of marginal comment found in the story of the Egyptian midwives; And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew {g} women [are] not as the Egyptian women; for they [are] lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.(g) Their disobedience in this was lawful, but their deception is evil. To James there could be no 'lawful disobedience' under any circumstances. James' son, Charles I, had the same exalted idea of kingship and this resulted in the 'Civil Wars of the Three Kingdoms' which lasted from 1642 to 1660. This was our own 'Republican Revolution' against the divine right of kings. Later one of our less important colonies ;-) staged another revolution against another English king (whose parliament was demanding absolute sovereignty) with rather far-reaching consequences. Interestingly, George Washington described this as a 'Civil War'. Historically, it was part of the same process.I have often wondered if the War of Independence would have taken place if the 'settlers' had used the AV/KJV rather than their Geneva Bible.This has been a long post, but I wanted to make the point that every translation has its own unique historical setting and we need to keep this in mind when we judge its accuracy.
Hi Ron,I have often wondered if the War of Independence would have taken place if the 'settlers' had used the AV/KJV rather than their Geneva Bible.I think this question will be in harmony with the thread; but, why do you suppose the AV/KJV gained such a foothold in America over the Geneva bible? If it came over on the Mayflower, how did we become such a KJV dominated people early on?
Philogos, I'm also interested in how the KJV came to be accepted by very many as the only inspired translation in the English language? For so far as I know, it never claimed to be.
Glad I got to kick start this discussion again. I only noticed it was about to slip to page 2 last nite, as it was the last on page 1. Neat !!!Veeeerrryyyy interesting and informative posts.Happy it's still going.Thanks !
I think this question will be in harmony with the thread; but, why do you suppose the AV/KJV gained such a foothold in America over the Geneva bible? If it came over on the Mayflower, how did we become such a KJV dominated people early on?I have pondered this myself and come to no real conclusion other than of simple availability and printers' rights. From 1616 new printings of the Geneva Bible were banned. Earlier Geneva Bible printings were in smaller type and on far smaller pages. (The modern facsimile has a warning that you should not buy this Bible if you suffer from eyestrain!) According to the history of these things the AV was not particularly popular in England and the Geneva Bible remained the favourite for personal reading for half a century after the appearance of the AV. I think the last printing (other than modern facsimile printings) of the Geneva Bible was 1644. Perhaps the book was just not available!It is interesting that in spite of the appearance of the AV, the Geneva Bible was the Bible of Oliver Cromwell and his Republican Revolution. There is a Geneva Only! website that you may find interesting. ;-) Another factor may be that the KJV was NOT written in the vernacular of the day and the style of the Geneva was even older. It was probably time for a new translation and the AV was sufficiently close to the Geneva to make the transition comfortable. I have also read, but not documented, that James made ownership of the Geneva Bible a felony. The notes so infuriated King James that he considered Them "partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring of dangerous and traitorous conceits." But these are all surmisings. I don't know."It was continually printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different editions. It was the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers, thinkers, and historical figures of the Reformation era. William Shakespeare’s plays and the writings of John Milton and John Bunyan were clearly influenced by the Geneva Bible. Oliver Cromwell issued a pamphlet containing excerpts from the Geneva Bible to his troops during the English Civil War. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower they took with them exclusively the Geneva Bible."
William Shakespeare’s plays and the writings of John Milton and John Bunyan were clearly influenced by the Geneva Bible. Oliver Cromwell issued a pamphlet containing excerpts from the Geneva Bible to his troops during the English Civil War. When the Pilgrims set sail on the Mayflower they took with them exclusively the Geneva Bible."The oldest books at William Jewell College's collection of Spurgeon's Library are in a glass case (others are locked in bookshelves or open for careful 'gloved' handling ;-) ) and they are a book from the 1500's that was his and a Geneva Bible!I read somewhere that by the time the AV/KJV was published that the 'language' was already outdated (or getting there). When I looked at the Geneva bible as I have seen also a facsimile of the 1611 version of the KJV- the Geneva did look harder to read. Some may not know that the original 1611 uses different 'letters' than our version. You read words like 'thefe' (these). I suppose also that folk did not realize that there were differences as you mentioned them or maybe they had been more cautious? The influence of King James on the translation and his position on authority has FAR reaching effects in my camp that I am not sure will soon be rooted out. The problem with discussing the issues is that it tends to 'uproot' the whole of the confidence of the beloved translation. So what are we to do when folk hold to the KJV almost like it was inspired and would faulter or waver if doubt in certain areas were cast?
There is a Geneva Only! website that you may find interesting. I just read through the info on the Geneva bible located on the 'Geneva Only' website. I guess I shouldn't be very suprised that it reads almost just like a 'King James Only' website. Complete with the name calling, unfounded accusations, etc... all mixed in with truth.I have to comment that I am enjoying this thread(and learning a lot) and am looking forward to whatever is coming next.Lyndon
James 1:1 ιακωβος θεου και κυριου ιησου χριστου δουλος ταις δωδεκα φυλαις ταις εν τη διασπορα χαιρεινHas anyone ever wondered how the greek name Iakobos {ee-ak'-o-bos} or Jacob was ever translated to the name James?I used to think it was because King Jimmy wanted his name in the Bible, bur it is also translated James in Wyclifes and Tyndales versions also. They were before the KJV.
what is the history of the geneva bible?
James in English and Seamus in Irish are the equivalents of the Hebrew name Jacob. There is nothing conspiratorial in using the name James. Petros is Peter, Andreas is Andrew, Miriam is Mary. Lucas is Luke, Marcus is Mark. Iesus is Jesus.I think English is one of the few European langauges which pronounces the "J" of Jacob as a "Jay". The usual pronunciation is 'Yacob'. Most other European languages also pronounce the Greek word ''iEsous" as Yaysoos'.
Logic, thanks you rang a bell for me ... now, I'd like to tap into somebody's "history banks" and ask how on earth we came up with the name "Jesus" ?I guessing it's from the Latin ... but I have no idea and would really like to know.G2424ΙησουςIēsousee-ay-sooce'Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: - Jesus.H3091יהושׁע יהושׁוּעyehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛yeh-ho-shoo'-ah, yeh-ho-shoo'-ahFrom H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: - Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.Thanks anyone.Annie
what is the history of the geneva bible?Geneva BibleiEsoussee my earlier note. This is Greek not Latin. In Hebrew, Greek, Latin (and almost all European languages the pronunciation of 'Jesus' would be 'Yaysoos'. So 'Jesus' is simply a European transliteration of the Greek name "iEsous" but in English the 'J' is not pronounced as elsewhere but as a "Jay", hence we arrive at the English pronunciation 'Gee-sus'.edit: my Greek font is still corrupting even when I copy and pasted MeAgain's. I use upper case letters of 'eta' and 'omega'!!
Logic wrote:James 1:1 ιακωβος θεου και κυριου ιησου χριστου δουλος ταις δωδεκα φυλαις ταις εν τη διασπορα χαιρεινHas anyone ever wondered how the greek name Iakobos {ee-ak'-o-bos} or Jacob was ever translated to the name James?I used to think it was because King Jimmy wanted his name in the Bible, bur it is also translated James in Wyclifes and Tyndales versions also. They were before the KJV.HA ! I just read the rest of your post.That's like Alfred Hitchcock was always somewhere in all of his movies, but I never once caught or spotted him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_BibleGeneva Bible History WikipediaAccording to this article it was constituted by Elizabeth the first, does this bible have the same problems as the King James and what is the background manuscripts , what greek manuscripts were used to translate this? I need really to read this whole version, I have read most of the newer versions.
ErasmusBorn Oct. 27, 1469 in Rotterdam, Holland Died July 12, 1536 in Basil Switzerland.Humanist who was the greatest scholar of the northern Renaissance, the first editor of the New Testament, and also an important figure in PATRISTICS and classical literature.Using the philological methods pioneered by Italian humanists, Erasmus helped lay the groundwork for the HISTORICAL-CRITICAL STUDY OF THE PAST, especially in his studies of the GREEK NEW TESTAMENT and the CHURCH FATHERS. His educational writings contributed to the replacement of the older scholastic curriculum by the new humanist emphasis on the classics. By criticizing ecclesiastical abuses, while pointing to a better age in the distant past, he encouraged the growing urge for reform, which found expression both in the PROTESTANT REFORMATION. Finally, his independent stance in an age of fierce confessional controversy—rejecting both Luther's doctrine of predestination and the powers that were claimed for the papacy—made him a target of suspicion for loyal partisans on both sides and a beacon for those who valued liberty more than orthodoxy.Church Fathers.partisans on both sides and a beacon for those who valued liberty more than orthodoxy.Church FathersFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[The study of the Fathers is known as Patristics]The Church Fathers or Fathers of the Church are the early and influential theologians and writers in the Christian Church, particularly those of the first five centuries of Christian history. The term means specifically writers and teachers of the Church, not saints in general; usually it is not meant to include the New Testament authors, but some of their texts were considered to enter the biblical canon.Those fathers who wrote in Latin are called the Latin (Church) Fathers, and those who wrote in Greek the Greek (Church) Fathers.The very earliest Church Fathers, of the first two generations after the Apostles of Christ, are usually called the Apostolic Fathers. Famous Apostolic Fathers are St. Clement of Rome, the author of the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Later, in contact with Greek Philosophy and Literature and facing persecutions, began a period called the Apologetic Fathers who tried to justify and defend the Christian doctrine against attacks from within the Hellenistic world, important Fathers of this era are St. Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Hermias and Tertullian. Fathers prior to Nicene Christianity are collected in Ante-Nicene Fathers, those after are in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.Famous Latin Fathers include the Montanist Tertullian, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Ambrose of Milan, and St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate; famous Greek Fathers include St. Irenaeus of Lyons (whose work has survived only in Latin translation), Clement of Alexandria, the heterodox Origen, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, and the Three Cappadocian Fathers. However there are many more.The Desert Fathers were early monastics living in the Egyptian desert; although they did not write as much, their influence was also great. Among them are St. Anthony the Great and St. Pachomius. A great number of their usually short sayings is collected in the Apophthegmata Patrum.A small number of other Fathers wrote in other languages: Saint Ephrem, for example, wrote in Syriac, but his works were widely translated into Latin and Greek.In the Roman Catholic Church, St. John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century, is generally considered to be the last of the Church Fathers and at the same time the first seed of the next period of church writers, scholasticism. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider the age of Church Fathers to be over at all and it includes later influential writers in the term.[The study of the Fathers is known as Patristics]Some very limited examples of “Patristics” from various Early Church Fathers follow. PLEASE NOTE THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE IN MUCH OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BELOW:Erasmus studied “Patristics”, and was well acquainted with all of the writings of these men:JOHN DAMASCENE Born at Damascus, about 676 A.D; died some time between 754 and 787 A.D. AT THE GARDEN GATE‘All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for training in righteousness.’ 2 Tim. 3:16. The soul therefore gains great advantage from the reading of the Bible.‘Like a tree planted by streams of water,’ Ps. 1:3 the soul is irrigated by the Bible and acquires vigour, produces tasty fruit, namely, true faith, and is beautified with a thousand green leaves, namely, actions that please God.The Bible, in fact, leads us towards pure holiness and holy actions. In it we find encouragement to all the virtues and the warning to flee from evil.The Bible is a scented garden, delightful, beautiful. It enchants our ears with birdsong in a sweet, divine and spiritual harmony, it touches our heart, comforts us in sorrow, soothes us in a moment of anger, and fills us with eternal joy.Let us knock at its gate with diligence and with perseverance. Let us not be discouraged from knocking. 'I'he latch will be opened.If we have read a page of the Bible two or three times and have not understood it, let us not be tired of reading it again and meditating on it. Let us seek in the fountain of this garden ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ John 4:14. We shall taste a.joy that will never dry up, because the grace of the Bible garden is inexhaustible.John Damascene On the Orthodox Faith, 4, 7 (PG94, 1176ff.)XXXXDIADOCHUS OF PHOTICAWritten by John DamasceneTHE SECRET OF THE PEACE WE NEEDThose who are engaged in spiritual warfare must always keep their hearts tranquil. Only then can the mind sift the impulses it receives and store in the treasure house of thememory those that are good and come from God, while rejecting altogether those that are perverse and devilish.When the sea is calm, the fisherman's eyes can see the movements of the fish deep down, so that hardly any of them can escape. But when the sea is ruffled by the wind, the turmoil of the waves hides from sight the creatures that would easily have been seen if the sea wore the smile of calm. The skill of the fisherman is of little use in rough weather.Something of the same sort happens with the soul, especially when it is stirred to the depths by anger.At the beginning of a storm, oil is poured on the waters to calm them, and in fact the oil defeats their commotion. In this way, when the soul receives the anointing of the gift of the Holy Spirit, it gladly gives in to this inexpressible and untroubled sweetness. And even if it is continually attacked by temptation it maintains its peace and joy.Diadochus of Photica Spiritual Works, 23 (SC5b, pp.27ff.)XXXXXXXXXXXXXMAXIMUS THE CONFESSORKnown as the Theologian and as Maximus Confessor, born at Constantinople about 580; died in exile 13 August, 662THE HOLY CHURCH …includes many people, men, women and children without number. They are all quite different frorn one another, in birth, in size, in nationality and language, in style of living and age, in trades and opinions, in clothes and customs, in knowledge and rank, in welfare and in appearance. They are nonetheless all of them in the selfsame Church. Thanks to her, they are all reborn, newly created in the Spirit. The Church grants to all of them without distinction the grace of belonging in Christ and of taking his name by calling themselves Christians.Faith, moreover, puts us in a position which is extremely simple, and incapable of separation, in such a way that the differences between us seem not to exist, because everything is gathered together into the Church and reconciled in her.No one lives alone any more, no one is separated from the others, but all are mutually joined together as brothers and sisters in the simple and indivisible power of faith. Of the first Church,Scripture says: "The company of those who believed were of one heart and soul" Acts 1:32 in such a way that all the many members looked like a single body, truly worthy of Christ himself, our true Head. And speaking of the action of Christ in the Church, the Apostle asserts: "There is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek, neither circumcised nor uncircumcised, neither barbarian nor Scythian, neither slave nor freeman, but Christ is all and in all." cf. Gal. 3:~8; Col. 3:11. Christ with the unique power of goodness and with infinite wisdom reunites everything in himself, as the centre from which the rays go out.MAXIMUS THE CONFESSORRIGHT USE NOT MISUSEIt is important to understand the right use of external objects and pictures of them in our imagination.The reasonable use of them produces for its fruit the virtues of chastity, charity and right knowledge.Their unreasonable use results in debauchery, hatred and ignorance.It is through the measure in which we misuse the powers of the soul, namely its desire, emotion, reason, that the vices install themselves: ignorance and folly in the reasoning faculty, hatred and debauchery in the desires and emotions. Their right use, on the contrary, produces right knowledge and prudence, charity and chastity.Nothing that God has created is in itself bad. Food is not bad, gluttony is; the procreation of children is not bad, lechery is; wealth is not bad, avarice is; glory is not bad, only vainglory is.So you see nothing is bad in itself, only the misuse of it, which is the soul’s negligence in cultivating its true nature.Maximus the Confessor Centuries on Charity, 3, 1 (SC9, p.123)PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA(20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.)LIFE IS A DREAM WITH MANY CHANGES OF SCENEI am not telling a lie: human life is a dream.In our dreams we look without seeing, we listen, without hearing, we taste and touch without tasting or touching, we speak without saying anything, we wa1k without moving. We seem to be moving normally even though we stay still and to be making our habitual gestures even though we are not. The mind invents realities that are entirely imaginary.When we are awake, our thoughts are like these dreams. They come and go. They meet and part. They fly away before we can catch them.Nor is our body any different from a dream. Is not its beauty likely to go rotten before it is ripe? Is not its health continually being threatened with illness? How little it takes to destroy its strength! How easily its senses deterioiate!Our careers are no less precarious. Often a single day is enough to scatter a great work to the winds. Many people who are held in respect and honour with a sudden change of events fall into disgrace. The greatest kingdoms on earth have been destroyed in a short time.If we have so many changes of scene in life, and so many dark experiences, we ought to learn to distinguish what is virtuous from what is base, what is good from what is bad, what is just from what is unjust.I give you an example of what I mean. Do you possess a lot of money? If so, give it away because the beauty of riches consists not in money-boxes but in helping the poor. Are you short of money? Be careful not to envy the rich. And do not despair, because human affairs are always changing into their opposites.yPhilo of Alexandria, Thesaurus Patrum VII. PROCLUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE IF CHRIST HAD NOT BEEN BORN OF WOMAN…A God who was nor only God, and a man who was not simply man, was born of woman.By being born he formed the gate of salvation from what had at one time been the way in for sin. Where in fact the serpent by exploiting human disobedience had infused his poison, there the Word entered through obedience and built a living temple. From the womb of a woman had come forth the original son of sin, Cain; and £rom the womb of a woman, without seed, there came into the light the Christ, the redeemer of the human race.Let us not be ashamed that he was born of a woman. That.birth was for us the beginning of salvation.If Christ had not been born of woman, he would not have died either, and would not "by death have destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil." - Heb. 2:14.Proclus of Constantinople, Homily on the Mother of God (PG6S, 679ff.)PSEUDO-MARCARIUS by John DamascaneACCOMPLICESInside us evil is at work suggesting unworthy inclinations. However, it is not in us in the same way as, to take an example, water mixes with wine. Evil is in us without being mixed with good.We are a field in which wheat and weeds are growing separately. We are a house in which there is a thief, but also the owner. We are a spring which rises from the middle of the mud, but pours out pure water.All the same, it is enough to stir up the mud and the spring is fouled. It is the same with the soul. If the evil is spread, it forms a unity with the soul and makes it dirty. With our consent, evil is united with the soul; they become accomplices.Yet there comes a moment when the soul can free itself and remain separate again: in repentance, contrition, prayer, recourse to God. The soul could not benefit from these habits if it were always sunk in evil.It is like marriage. A woman is united with a man and they become one flesh. But when one of them dies, the other is left alone.But union with the Holy Spirit is complete. So let us become a single spirit with him. Let us be wholly absorbed by grace.Pseudo-Marcarius Homily 16, 1 (PG34, 613)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSAYINGS OF THE DESERT FATHERS:IF YOU THINK YOU ARE HUMBLE THAT MEANS YOU ARE NOTA monk said: "Every time you feel a sense of superiority or a touch of vanity, examine your conscience. Ask yourself if you are keeping all the commandments, if you are loving your enemies and weeping for their faults, if you consider yourself an unprofitable servant and the worst sinner in the world. But even after this examination of conscience, do not take too high an opinion of yourself as if you were perfect: such an idea would wreck everything!" Another monk said: "Whoever is praised and honoured more than is deserved suffers a great loss, while the one who does not receive honours from others will be glorified in heaven."People asked a monk: "What is humility?" He replied: "Humility is if a brother or sister sins against you and you forgive them before they come to ask you to.A brother asked a monk: "What is humility?" The monk said: "To do good to whoever does evil to us." The brother insisted: "And if one does not achieve as much?" The monk's reply was: "Then go away and try to keep your mouth shut."Sayings of the Desert Fathers, nos. 165ff. (PG65)St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, III: The Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the gospel, and by them we also have learned the truth, that is, the teaching of the Son of God - as the Lord said to them, `He who hears you hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me, and Him Who sent Me' [Lk.10:16]. For we learned the plan of our salvation from no other than from those through whom the gospel came to us. The first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For it is not right to say that they preached before they had come to perfect knowledge, as some dare to say, boasting that they are the correctors of the apostles. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the power from on high when the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were filled with all things and had perfect knowledge. They went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the good things that come to us from God, and proclaiming peace from heaven to all men, all and each of them equally being in possession of the gospel of God. XXXXXXXXXXXSt. Justin Popovich:In Christianity truth is not a philosophical concept nor is it a theory, a teaching, or a system, but rather, it is the living theanthropic hypostasis - the historical Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Before Christ men could only conjecture about the Truth since they did not possess it. With Christ as the incarnate divine Logos the eternally complete divine Truth enters into the world. For this reason the Gospel says: "Truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). XXXXXXXXXXXX St. Anthony the Great: I saw the snares that the enemy spreads out over the world and I said groaning, "What can get through from such snares?" Then I heard a voice saying to me, "Humility." XXXXXXXXXXXXXSt. Hesychius the Priest: The hour of death will come upon us, it will come, and we shall not escape it. May the prince of this world and of the air (cf. John 14:30; Eph. 2:2) find our misdeeds few and petty when he comes, so that he will not have good grounds for convicting us. Otherwise we shall weep in vain. 'For that servant who knew his lord's will and did not do it as a servant, shall be beaten with many stripes' (cf. Luke 12:47). XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ:There is nothing impossible unto those who believe; lively and unshaken faith can accomplish great miracles in the twinkling of an eye. Besides, even without our sincere and firm faith, miracles are accomplished, such as the miracles of the sacraments; for God's Mystery is always accomplished, even though we were incredulous or unbelieving at the time of its Celebration. "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" (Rom. 3:3). Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence. XXXXXXXXXXXXX St. Dimitry of Rostov:First of all it must be understood that it is the duty of all Christians - especially of those whose calling dedicates them to the spiritual life - to strive always and in every way to be united with God, their creator, lover, benefactor, and their supreme good, by Whom and for Whom they were created. This is because the center and the final purpose of the soul, which God created, must be God Himself alone, and nothing else - God from whom the soul has received its life and its nature, and for whom it must eternally live. XXXXXXXXXXXXX St. Theodore of Edessa: Wine makes glad the heart of man' (Ps. 104:15). But you who have professed sorrow and grief should turn away from such gladness and rejoice in spiritual gifts. If you rejoice in wine, you will live with shameful thoughts and distress will overwhelm you. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX John of Karpathos:Do all in your power not to fall, for the strong athlete should not fall. But if you do fall, get up again at once and continue the contest. Even if you fall a thousand times because of the withdrawal of God's grace, rise up again each time, and keep on doing this until the day of your death. For it is written, 'If a righteous man falls down seven times' - that is, repeatedly throughout his life - 'seven times shall he rise again' [Prov. 24:16]. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSt. Symeon the New Theologian:For those who believe in Him, Christ will become all this and even more, beyond enumeration, not only in the age to come but first in this life, and then in the world to come. Thou in an obscure way here below and in a perfect manner in the Kingdom, those who believe see clearly nonetheless and receive as of now the first-fruits of everything they will have in the future life. Indeed, if they do not receive on earth everything that was promised to them, they do not have any part of foretaste of the blessings to come, their higher hope being set on the hereafter. However, it is through death and the resurrection that God in His foresight has given us the Kingdom, incorruptibility, the totality of life eternal. Given these Conditions, we unquestionably become partakers of the good things to come, that is, incorruptible, immortal, sons of God, sons of the light and of the day, inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, since we carry the Kingdom within. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX THEODORETHUMANITY AS WITNESS TO THE UNKNOWNWhen we consider how human beings are made, we are filled with wonder at the wisdom of the Creator that is revealed in us.Suffice it to observe the different functions of the senses which all stem from one centre, the brain, and report back to it all sorts of perceptions: sight, smell, taste, touch…, and also to observe the other organs of the body both internal and external; and the memory, that recalls numerous disparate elements without confusing or altering them; and the number of thoughts which do not cancel each other out but reappear at the right moment.We cannot refrain from exclaiming with the Psalmist: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, O Lord: it is high, I cannot attain it." (Ps. 139, 6)In fact, no one will ever succeed in explaining completely the harmony that is displayed in our bodies or the subtlety that is apparent in our soul. Innumerable thinkers have written on this point. Even so, what has been said is but a small part of what remains to be said, for human reason cannot attain to divine wisdom.So this is the Psalmist’s attitude: he praises God for what he understands but confesses himself overwhelmed by it; it is not possible for him to encompass all the marvels which are to be seen in humanity.Such an admission is in itself an appropriate hymn of praise.The Cure of Pagan Diseases, 5, 81 (SC57, p.2XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTHEODORET AS THE EYE NEEDS LIGHTTo see visible objects we need the eyes of the body. To understand intelligible truths we need the eyes of the mind. To have the vision of divine things we cannot do without faith.What the eye is for the body, faith is for reason. To be more precise: the eye needs the light which puts it in contact with visible things; reason needs faith to show it divine things.Theodoret The Cure of Pagan Diseases, I, 78 (SC57, 124) God bless,SteverPATRISTICS--THE STUDY OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Hi Stever...While I don't agree with your KJV-only position, it might help your cause if you stated your position and then provided a link to your sources -- rather than "copy and paste" information from another source.In fact, I "copied and paste" your new post into Microsoft Word. I changed the font to Times New Roman 12pt -- and your post was over 9 pages long! I also did a word count, and your post contains 3,822 words. I have written essays in English courses that were shorter than that! While you might believe that a "serious believer" might want to read all of your copied material, you may want to consider that an interested individual will actually follow a link and look up that information for himself/herself.It might help your cause if you would just state what it is you are trying to say, and then provide a link to the material. It takes alot of space in the threads when you constantly fill your posts with such immense amounts of copied material. And often, it becomes difficult to determine what is your own original thoughts -- and what is something that you have copied from another source. Not only that, but by providing the link, it is helpful to "rightfully divide" your source.But this is just my own two-cents. :-)
Hi,Hope this isn't too far of a reach from the topic. This is something I've been going over in my mind for some time. I feel it might be better if I "go out of my mind' and ask a little advice.I live in Thailand, and the translation I know it the best, the KJV, is not a viable option when talking with people who's understanding of English is limited. KJV English is very difficult for them. I wonder why?Right now I carry (read, lug around) 3 bibles. A Thompsons KJV for the concordance and other look up features (as most ot the verses in my aforementioned mind are in KJV). I carry a Thompsons NIV for clarity (and to become familiar with it), and a Parallel Thai/TEV bible to share with people who speak just a little English. They don't speak the English so good like what I speak, Unnerstan? :)I would like one understandable compact size modern bible, with a concordance with as many similarities to the KJV wording as possible. I'm not asking for much... Right! I was thinking avout getting a NKJV compact but I don't know how good their concordance is, or an ESV, but I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and don't know how close the wording gets to the KJV or whether the concordance is any good.Personally, I think one of the biggest problems with non-KJV bibles is that today we have lost the plural and singular forms of the word "you". Y'all know what I'm talking about? I personally would like to mark whatever version I'm using with the proper forms. Do y'all know a resource that lists all these instances, or do I have to go through the Bible line for line? It would be cool to find a resource for this as well as where the specific verse renderings are more controversial in alternate translations, so that I can note these as well. You can choose to reply to this question on this forum, or in person. Just let me know when your plane arrives in Bangkok.Y'all come back now... hear?Jeffrey
I've seen Loooonnnngggger posts on here Chris.Many that were sooooooo long, they needed three posts to fit them into.I was afraid we had run Stever off, as he hadn't posted since earlier in this thread, when things went south here. I was glad to see him return ... more than worried about the size of his post ... which, as I've said and we all know .... at least it "fit" into one post ... unlike many other poster's posts here.Anyhow .... Stever .... I don't know much about you ... but may I ask you which "KJV-Only" ministries do you associate with ? Are you in a KJV ONLY camp or do you just personally prefer that version for yourself ?I only ask, because there is a huge difference here and I'd like to know what Sites you frequent or trust.Equity for all & Love, Annie
Godspeace's I would like one understandable compact size modern bible, with a concordance with as many similarities to the KJV wording as possible. I'm not asking for much... Right! I was thinking avout getting a NKJV compact but I don't know how good their concordance is, or an ESV, but I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and don't know how close the wording gets to the KJV or whether the concordance is any good.I think the NKJV is the best way to go. I taught numbers of foreign students in Bible courses and we opted for the NKJV. I keep trying the ESV and it has some things I like but overall am finding it very disappointing. It claims to favour a more literal equivalence and it is if you compare it with the RSV but if you compare it with the KJV or the NASV it is much less 'literal equivalence'.Personally, I think one of the biggest problems with non-KJV bibles is that today we have lost the plural and singular forms of the word "you". Y'all know what I'm talking about? I do, and this will be high in my list for 'sticking to the KJV'.
Stever's Erasmus & Patristics If this is your answer to my challenges, it doesn't even come close. I will repeat them in case you have forgotten them.I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that Erasmus had "all of the manuscripts, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers".I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that 95% of the New Testament is repeated in the letters of the early Church fathers.
I found an image of a Geneva Bible which will give a good idea of the way in which additional notes and comments were added in the margins and foot of the page.The notes, btw, comprised 30% of the Bible text. Not even Mr Scofield could compete with that. :-)
Great picture, I can almost smell the pages. :-)
MeAgain wrote:..................Anyhow .... Stever .... I don't know much about you ... but may I ask you which "KJV-Only" ministries do you associate with ? Are you in a KJV ONLY camp or do you just personally prefer that version for yourself ?I only ask, because there is a huge difference here and I'd like to know what Sites you frequent or trust.Equity for all & Love, AnniexxxxxxxxxxxxxStever responds:Thank you for asking. For years I read the NIV. In fact I was quite disapointed when I could not find a Strongs Concordance for the NIV, but at the time, the King James only. I purchased it and it sat on the shelf. Then, fast forward several years. The Church I attended started posting all of the scripture that the Pastor quoted on a movie screen by the use of Microsoft Powerpoint.On the evening of 6/4/1999 I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Minutes later my wife also received this Baptism.Several weeks later I just happened to bring an Old King James Bible that I had to Church. I was the only one even carrying a Bible that day. In any event, the Scripture quoted on the screen that was the NIV version of the Bible did not square with the King James that I had in my hands.After much personal study, and then reading the works of others, I came to the sincere conclusion that the newer versions, and especially the NIV are full of error and are watering down the Doctrine of God's Word. The King James stays true to that Word.Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today see nothing wrong with allowing practicing homosexuals to pastor Churches? Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today think that active homosexuals that belong to a Church and say that they are "saved" really believe that these people are saved? Is is a coincidence that many, many Christians are involved with adultery and divorce--at the same rate as the "unchurched" world? Is is a coincidence that supposed "Christians" of today are involved with pornography on the internet, and don't have the knowledge or understanding to know that they have to repent of their sin and ask God for forgiveness, and then turn away from it? The answer is no.The reason for this paradigm change in my mind is nothing more than all of the newer versions that have erased God's very commands from His Word. The newer versions hit the scene in the late 1960's, and the Churches that have changed from the KJV to the NIV during that time (or other newer versions) are the ones that are involved in all of the error mentioned in my paragraph above.That is it, plain and simple. No matter what I post, or the examples I give, others disagree. The responses sound nothing more than "He said,,,,She said". I find no problem with that. My eyes are open and I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to present this truth to all those who will listen.God bless,Stever
philologos wrote:Stever's
xxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:I really do not think there will ever be an answer for you. You are sincere in your belief that the King James, that relies on the Textus Receptus is not one bit better than newer Bible versions that do not rely on it. That's it, plain and simple.This is an excerpt, from the work of Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, "WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE" with footnotes that goes into detail about Biblical text that Erasmus had access to-- both before his work with the KJV, as well as what he used when he did his work with the KJV. I am quite certain that this will not satisfy you either. HOWEVER, IT MAY CERTAINLY OPEN THE EYES OF OTHERS.ERASMUS RESTORES THE RECEIVED TEXT (GREEK)The Greek upon which the King James translation was based was first printed in A.D. 1516 at Basle, Switzerland, under the editorship of the famous Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus. As a Scholar, Erasmus was without peer – the intellectual giant of Europe in his day. Erasmus was ever at work, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing, writing and publishing. Europe was rocked by his works which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, and the general bigotry and wickedness within the Roman church.He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the "Fathers" (letters etc. written by the early Church fathers) which taken as a whole contain almost the entire New Testament. Today, many who deprecate the pure teachings of the Received Text pervert the facts in order to belittle his work. While he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price! The Emperor of Germany likewise. Indeed, the Pope offered him the position of Cardinal. Erasmus resolutely declined not being willing to compromise his beliefs or conscience. France and Spain beckoned him to their realm while Holland proudly claimed him as her most distinguished son.Book after book came from his labors. The demand for them was overwhelming. His crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last, after one thousand years, the New Testament was printed in its original tongue (A.D.1516).Astonished and confounded, Europe – the intellectual, civilized cradle of the world – deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospel. In a letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter Barbirius, Erasmus wrote:"I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them." (Edward Lee afterwards became Archbishop of York)Consider and reflect upon this – the foremost scholar in the entire civilized world said the work was his "best". Such men have both egos and detractors. Erasmus would never have put his name on an undertaking which would have left him exposed and defenseless before his enemies and critics.When Erasmus came to Basle in A.D. 1515 for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek New Testament, he had only five Greek cursive minuscules of the New Testament at his disposal. For the most part, he utilized a 15th century manuscript for the Gospels but used an 11th or 12th century manuscript on occasion. He used a 12th or 13th century manuscript for the Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus had a 15th century manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles which he also used occasionally, and he had a 12th century manuscript of Revelation. The last six verses of the Revelation manuscript were missing so he used the Latin Vulgate version to complete the chapter.Erasmus' Greek New Testament has been often criticized on the grounds that he had so little data at his command from which to draw and that they were "late" copies. However, Erasmus did not go to the task unprepared. Although he had only five late minuscules, he had already translated a Latin New Testament and in preparation for this labor had collected and gathered variant readings from many Greek manuscripts. He journeyed all over Europe to libraries and to anyone from whom he could gather readings from manuscripts. Erasmus organized his findings and made notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts and Erasmus divided them into two camps, i.e., those he considered spurious and those he deemed genuine and trustworthy. The SPURIOUS GROUP was a small percentage of the whole and mainly agreed with the LATIN VULGATE READINGS. Of the several hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text.Naturalistic critics think that the presence and availability for Erasmus' use of these five Basle minuscules was merely an unhappy accident. But these men do not understand the providence of God – that God has promised to overlook His Word. The text which Erasmus published was really not his own. It was taken virtually without change from these few manuscripts which God providentially placed at his disposal. The text contained in these manuscripts eventually came to be known as the "Textus Receptus" (the Received Text).To emphasize and demonstrate the above, we quote the late Herman C. Hoskier. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. His conclusion, based upon the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, was:"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better ... " As Moorman relates, this is truly a powerful example of God's guiding providence in preserving the true text though but one late mss containing the Revelation was available to Erasmus at Basle. ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCEDErasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known to scholars today – more than 470 years ago. This may be proven from a perusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin. After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." In producing his first edition, Erasmus was under an incredible work load. Due to publication problems and deadline pressure, his first edition had many typographical errors, misprints, and misspellings. This led to much undue criticism. His work was greatly disfigured only in the sense mentioned, but the Text was providentially protected. God has not preserved the Text miraculously for then there would have been no such glosses, and all the various uncials and cursives would read the same, word for word. In the case of providential guidance, we can see that there is a human as well as a divine side to the preservation of the Text. For the most part, these errors were eliminated by Erasmus in his later editions. Such things as these are, however, not factors which need to be taken into account insofar as evaluating the "Textus Receptus" – a designation by which his work later came to be known.The year after Erasmus published, Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. Shortly thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, brought about the Reformation.Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. One of the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's conviction that the Roman church was incapable of being reformed and he thought that Erasmus should join him in leaving. However Erasmus believed that he could better bring about reform by working from within the system. He was quite wrong.xxxxxxxxxxxThat's it in a nutshell. I do believe that God has the power to keep His Word undefiled. You, Philologos, do not have that same belief in God's power.That is what separates us, and nothing more.God bless,Stever"Erasmus organized his findings and made notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts and Erasmus divided them into two camps, i.e., those he considered spurious and those he deemed genuine and trustworthy. The SPURIOUS GROUP was a small percentage of the whole and mainly agreed with the LATIN VULGATE READINGS. Of the several hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text."" ERASMUS AND THE WORK HE PRODUCED"Erasmus knew almost all of the important variant readings known to scholars today – more than 470 years ago. This may be proven from a perusal of his notes. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 A.D.) was a Greek and Latin scholar who, as an eminent historian, researched Egyptian chronology and spent twenty eight years tracing the Received Text to its apostolic origin.After surveying Erasmus' notes, Nolan recorded:"With respect to manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principle classes, one of which corresponds with ... the Vatican manuscript ... the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; and affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted."Erasmus & Patristics If this is your answer to my challenges, it doesn't even come close. I will repeat them in case you have forgotten them.I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that Erasmus had "all of the manuscripts, as well as the writings of the early Church fathers".I challenge Stever to produce any evidence that 95% of the New Testament is repeated in the letters of the early Church fathers.
I do believe that God has the power to keep His Word undefiled. You, Philologos, do not have that same belief in God's power.So are you saying that Erasmus perfectly restored the original text? If so what of the works of Stephens. Beza and Elzivir? Rather than produce endless quotations I will provide a 'link' as you have been requested by others. Variations within the Received Text tradition. Do you know, for example, that it has proved impossible to create an 'underlying text' for the KJV. Scrivener did so but by reverse-engineering the KJV. It was not possible. The KJV, of course, was based more on Estienne (Stephens) 'text' rather than that of Erasmus. The URL will show you some of the places where the TR differs from the TR!! Just find the Estienne variants marked by the initial letter 'E'. Scrivener's text is an 'invented text' in which he tried to reconstruct the underlying text of the KJV. The closest to it on the hyperlinked list will be 'W' for Christopher Wordsworth. In this list 'Er' signifies the Erasmus edition.Dates of the various editors are:Er\tErasmus 1516Erasmus himself later said that the Greek text of his first edition was "not edited, but done headlong;" that is, thrown together hastily. His publisher, John Froben, desired to get the edition out on the market quickly, and so Erasmus obtained what manuscripts he could find on short notice, marked on them a few changes, and gave them as copy to the printer. Most of the changes were made in order to present a text which displayed the Greek readings he had followed in his Latin translation, which he had been preparing for some time, and which appeared alongside the Greek in this edition. These readings were already supported by unspecified Greek manuscripts and other sources mentioned in the appended Annotations. The Annotations show that quotations from the early Latin ecclesiastical writers (called Fathers) were often decisive in his choice of readings, despite lack of support in Greek copies. S\tStephens 1546(Estienne 1546)The text of Estienne's third and fourth edition (1550, 1551) was used by William Whittingham and his colleagues as the basis for the English version of the New Testament included in the Geneva Bible, which was the most widely used English translation prior to the appearance of the King James version (1611). Theodore Beza also used the text of Estienne 1550 as the basis for his own influential editions (see Beza 1565), and it generally came to be regarded as a standard text, especially in England.B\tBeza 1565Beza's text of 1598 was the one most often followed by the translators of the King James version, and it also became the basis of the later Elzevir editions (see Elzevir 1624), which on the continent held a place of honour comparable to that of Estienne's editions in England.(these are hyperlinks, please check them out)then came the KJV translation...E\tElzevir 1624G\tGriesbach 1805L\tLachmann 1842T\tTischendorf 1869Tr\tTregelles 1857A\tAlford 1849 as revised in 1871W\tWordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870WH \tWestcott & Hort 1881NA\tNestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)HF\tHodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985God is omnipotent, that means He has the power to do whatever he wants to do. To 'have the power' is not in question. The question is whether He has chosen to do so. To be more accurate your view is that you 'believe God has exercised the choice to 'keep His word undefiled' but with minor errors. Unless every single manuscript contained the identical words, by your definition, God would have 'failed' to 'keep His word undefiled'. Which of the many variants of the TR is the 'undefiled word of God' as distinct from the 'undefiled word of God' with minor errors? For your view to hold there would have to be no variations with the Byzantine textform. Your view is unhistorical, unscientific and illogical. You and I have no difference in our belief that God is able to 'keep his word undefiled'. My view of God's omnipotence is absolute and by no means secondary to yours. In your view expressed above you are really saying that God did not keep His word undefiled until 1565 and the edited text of Beza but then it was 'perfectly restored' and is now unimproveable. How reasonable does that sound?
Hey Stever, if you are so bent on translation, why don't to learn koine greek and be a "Textus Receptus only" that would be 10 time beter the KJV. No mater what translaition, there is never aflawless transition from one language to another. Like when you translate the word Earth back and forth to one language and back again to English you come up with Earth - Dirt - Soil - Ground - Land... and so forth. You always loose something in translation. KJV is not excluded.I've noticed even the "KJV only" people say, "in other words" when they preach. If KJV is SO pefect, there would be no need for that.
Hi Stever...Thanks for sharing part of your testimony. It is refreshing to read something other than many pages of material copied from another source. Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today see nothing wrong with allowing practicing homosexuals to pastor Churches? Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today think that active homosexuals that belong to a Church and say that they are "saved" really believe that these people are saved? Is is a coincidence that many, many Christians are involved with adultery and divorce--at the same rate as the "unchurched" world? Is is a coincidence that supposed "Christians" of today are involved with pornography on the internet, and don't have the knowledge or understanding to know that they have to repent of their sin and ask God for forgiveness, and then turn away from it? The answer is no.The reason for this paradigm change in my mind is nothing more than all of the newer versions that have erased God's very commands from His Word. The newer versions hit the scene in the late 1960's, and the Churches that have changed from the KJV to the NIV during that time (or other newer versions) are the ones that are involved in all of the error mentioned in my paragraph above.That is it, plain and simple.I feel that the reason there is such sin in the Church is not because of the NIV, NASB, etc..., but because there is sin in the heart. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. Why? The Lord has led me to believe this, and it is confirmed in the Bible (both the KJV and the NIV). The same is true with divorce, adultery, lust, etc... It seems that you are blaming all of this on versions of the Bible that actually call those things sin.No matter what I post, or the examples I give, others disagree. The responses sound nothing more than "He said,,,,She said". I find no problem with that. My eyes are open and I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to present this truth to all those who will listen.Brother Stever, none of the "examples" that you have listed (and listed...and listed...) have made me believe that the NIV was the result of a conspiracy or a work of the devil. In fact, alot of your posts have actually made me question the eternal focus of KJV-only groups. It sometimes seems that they actually hate the NIV -- even more than the things of this world. You are definitely entitled to have an opinion in these matters. There have been discussion about this topic on SermonIndex for years. And there are soooo many different opinions. I would be very careful (or rather, prayerful) before stating emphatically that it is actually "the Holy Spirit" that has compelled you to state all of this. After much study (and even much more prayer), I disagree with your findings. However, we should always be very careful not to have a "I'm completely right -- listen to me!" type of attitude. Otherwise, you may be prone to believe that everyone that doesn't agree with your opinion is in deceived or in error. That is a dangerous "position" to hold -- and even more dangerous to blame that position on the Holy Spirit. :-) On a side note, as many others have pointed out, it would be very helpful if you would include the source with your "copy and pasted" material. And it would be helpful if you would summarize and provide a link, rather than just pasting many pages of text from what someone else wrote.
How is one to know that the KJV is the only inspired translation? Why can't translations based off of UBS4 or NA27 be the actual manuscripts by which God has preserved His word? Also, from what I have seen, the KJV still has all the passages in the gospel that are just as difficult if not impossible to harmonize in the KJV as the NASB or NIV. E.g. the crucifixion and resurrection accounts. Perhaps we still have not fully recovered the documents as they were originally written.
May I ask a question here without anyone losing their temper? If the KJV is NOT flawless, than would you please show me a flaw.And, Would'nt that make the world headlines, seeing that the KJV is the most purchased book of all times.By the way. It's the only "bible" without a copyright. :-)
Otherwise, you may be prone to believe that everyone that doesn't agree with your opinion is in deceived or in error. That is a dangerous "position" to hold -- and even more dangerous to blame that position on the Holy Spirit.The "Holy" Spirit is not a 'compelling spirit'. Either Stever is stating his opinion too strongly or this is a genuine compulsion and the Holy Spirit is not the author of it.
Hi J-bird...May I ask a question here without anyone losing their temper? If the KJV is NOT flawless, than would you please show me a flaw.There have been several threads about this issue. The KJV that is presently used is not the edition used in 1611. The current edition is a revision made in 1769 (and later corrected again in 1850). There were many obvious spelling,grammar and verbage errors in the original 1611. Thus, it was revised to correct those errors in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. There was a final revision in 1850 -- and that is the common version used today. As far as words that were lost in translation, one would be the use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. As nearly every other translation shows, the word was supposed to be "Passover" (including other translations taken from the Received Text). There has been alot of debate over the word, particularly since "Easter" was an ancient pagan holiday -- and only became associated with the resurrection of Christ hundreds of years after Acts was written with the advent of the Roman Catholic Church. Some have attributed it to the command by King James to the translators that they "keep the ecclesiastical words and traditions" as much as possible. But it is simply an obvious error of translation.And, Would'nt that make the world headlines, seeing that the KJV is the most purchased book of all times.Yes, the KJV of the Bible is the most purchased book of all time. But currently, the best selling edition of the Bible is the NIV (1978). It surpassed the KJV in 1986 in numbers purchased each year. The NIV (not to be confused with the NIrV or other modified NIVs) is currently the most purchased book each year.By the way. It's [the King James Version is] the only "bible" without a copyright. Actually, there are many other versions of the Bible that do not have a copyright. Interestingly, you were required to receive permission to publish the King James Version when it was first published. Of course, there weren't many publishers at the time, so I don't imagine that it was a big problem. :-)
By the way. It's the only "bible" without a copyright.mmm? it depends where you live!It has no worldwide copyright, but its reproduction is perpetually restricted in certain parts of the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative. :-(
I was not aware that the United Kingdom claimed ownership of the KJV. They might restrict it in places such as the Sudan, China, and many other countrys, but this does not mean they have ownership of the KJV. It has NO copyright. :-(
It was originally 'crown property' I think and James sold the rights to printing to a London Printer. In practice I don't think it really the Crown restricts its use but originally this was King James' property, hence its title! :-( edit: this is from wikipediaCopyright statusIn most of the world the King James Bible can be freely reproduced as it is long out of copyright. This is not the case in the United Kingdom itself.In the United Kingdom, the rights to the Authorised Version are held by the British Crown. The rights fall outside the scope of copyright as defined in statute law. Instead they fall under the purvue of the royal prerogative and as such they are perpetual in subsistence. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Authorised Version under letters patent. In England, the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for many years, with the earliest known reference coming in 1577.The Queen's Printer has granted Cambridge University Press the right to produce the Bible under these letters patent. Other letters patent of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorised Version. In the past the Queen's Printer has also granted the rights to other publishers.For much of the 20th century the firm Eyre & Spottiswoode were the Queen's Printers and held a license to produce the Authorised Version and the Book of Common Prayer. In the late 20th century they were taken over by Cambridge University Press who already printed Bibles, and Cambridge University Press became the Queen's Printers in 1989, and now administer the Crown Copyright in England. In Scotland the Authorised Version is published by Collins, but in recent years the publisher Canongate were allowed to produce a series of individual books of the Bible under the series title "The Pocket Canons".The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the holders, or those authorised by the holders from printing, publishing or importing the Authorised Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorised Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.Complicated?
ccchhhrrriiisss Posts:"On a side note, as many others have pointed out, it would be very helpful if you would include the source with your "copy and pasted" material."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: Your statement above continues to prove my point that you do not read what I post. Maybe you just have difficulty in understanding what you read? Specifically, my post says the following:"This is an excerpt, from the work of Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, "WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE" with footnotes that goes into detail about Biblical text that Erasmus had access to-- both before his work with the KJV, as well as what he used when he did his work with the KJV."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxI am not trying to be difficult here, only pointing out that this occurs over and over with only you, ccchhhrrriiisss.God bless,Stever
To Chris and anyone else who might be interseted, I don't claim to be an expert on this matter, but, when I am struggling with an issue and I don't quite know the answer my mind goes back to an old saying that my grandmother has always used, " When in doubt, DON'T". I know it sounds elementary, but if you really think about it, it makes alot of sense. My heart tells me that the KJV is the word of God, and that's what I have to go by. The truth is I have alot of doubt about the others. Now, to answer your reply. Let me refer you to a website where all these questions can be answered in a very detalied way. I'm tempted to keep refering to this website to answer all these questions, but for the benefit of everyone, I would like to share the knowledge. It's at http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp You can tell this guy really did his research, and has been a big help to me in answering very difficult questions. I think he has a answer to every question I've ever heard asked :-(
Brother Stever...Your statement above continues to prove my point that you do not read what I post. Maybe you just have difficulty in understanding what you read? As has been the case many times, you continue to make insinuations about me. I will ask you again -- as I have many times -- please do not do this. I do read your posts, including the enormous amounts of material that you frequently "copy and paste" in various threads about this topic. And yes, most of the time I understand what it is that your source is trying to say. However, I usually do not arrive to the same conclusion. Over the course of many posts against all other versions besides the KJV, there have been many instances in which you did not include your source. Even in this case, you only left the name and title of what I suppose to be either a book or an article. If possible, please leave more information or a citation. Often, a proper citation will help distinguish openly biased websites, books or sources from purely academic or unbiased ones. If you are "copy and pasting" this material from the web, it would really be nice to see a link from where your information is derived. If you are just copying from the text of the hard copy of a book, then a better citation would suffice. Why is this important? You are making many allegations against not only the NIV, but against many men and women who helped to translate it. For an issue that is so important (particularly to you), it would be important to have your sources from which we can test the information. As has been pointed out several times, many people view the works of Floyd Nolen Jones as presenting an extremely biased and inaccurate position on this issue. He is closely associated with taking a very strong KJV-only position concerning the Word of God. Brother Stever, we obviously disagree on this issue. And I realize that you obviously believe in the information that you post. But unfortunately, you question whether those that disagree with you actually have "difficulty understanding" what we read. I have read through alot of information on many sides of this issue, and yet I do not arrive to the same conclusion as you. It is very easy to consider someone "blind to the truth." And it is very easy to claim that the Holy Spirit "compelled" them to write these allegations against all other versions. But you know what? I would be very careful before I blamed such a position on the Holy Spirit. It would be a tragedy to bear false witness against the translators, those that accept the translation, or even the Word of God. :-) *EDITHi J-Bird...Thanks for the reference. Yes, I have read through that booklet before. However, I do not trust much of the material that comes from Chick Publications. While they have a few great salvation tracts, some of the books that have been published by Chick (like the Alberto series and He Came to Set the Captives Free) have proven to be fabrications. Chick is indeed a KJV-only publisher (to put it mildly).
Stever's response: Your statement above continues to prove my point that you do not read what I post. Maybe you just have difficulty in understanding what you read?Specifically, my post says the following:"This is an excerpt, from the work of Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, "WHICH VERSION IS THE BIBLE" with footnotes that goes into detail about Biblical text that Erasmus had access to-- both before his work with the KJV, as well as what he used when he did his work with the KJV."I hate to sound bitter and combative, here, but you sound like a royal idiot. I'm not sure if you're familiar with standard bibliographic techniques, but in the western world that involves publication date, access date and location (ala web address) for electronic media, author if available, and name. There's more for standard printed media, but I figure it to be mostly irrelevant.You quote improperly and bury such statements in a passage of text in a fashion consistant with plagiarism, and then arguementatively come back when multiple board members request not only a simpler version and more easily followable version of the same material you post, but also a more appropriate and reliable venue. You claim to not understand the original languages and so are not inclined to be considered a linguist or subsequent analyst, yet fervantly interact within this very topic.Stevter - You, sir, are biting your own tongue. The requests you are attacking are aimed in such a way where complying with them would seemingly favourably impact your credibility.For a fuller and more appropriate request: If you do consider it necessary to maintain your full dissertations, actively try to separate pulled texts, annotate them and give us a separated and easily distinguishable bibliographic reference. No offence, sir, but this is standard practice in middle school, and has been established by a literal society for the very reason you strive for: so that we may in turn follow your research or presentation in such a fashion as to more easily arrive at a conclusion. Otherwise its philosophy, and that is much easier to disregard.
PTywama3, Since when are we permitted to call anyone a "royal idiot" ... {to quote your post above mine here} ?Stever wrote:
Hi Stever,Of course I cannot read ALL of the posts on this thread ... I'm sorry, but my eyes dry out real easily, so you and the others have my deepest apologies for not knowing it all.Whatever is going on between you and Chris, should stay between you and Chris and I'm not even going to go read your posts to each other, as I don't want to know.As far as what you've posted to me .... well, if this is all there is to your feelings ... I would say, then I must be a "KJV ONLY" person too. Ha !I can't read the English in the Geneva Bible and I have downloaded a few of the Geneva Bible books so far, Matthew and John, from the link that RonB gave and I'm sure they are fantastic, but I've run into the same problem others have and I've posted it here last year.I also read the NIV for 9 years and then found I couldn't do a decent Bible study, because back in '85 there were no "numbered to the strong's" NIVs out there. And it did take years for them to at least come out with a Concordance for the NIV but by then, I went back to the KJV just so I could do the Word Studies in the languages.THAT was when I realised just how messed up I had gotten by memorizing the NIV.Wow, it took about 2 years to un-do the 9 years of NIV.Then, I would quote from the NIV as I had become accustomed to doing and would "try" to find that verse in the Strong's, by any word I could think would be the same, and when I FINALLY did find the verse I was thinking of ... it was worded totally different in the KJV and to the point sometimes, where even the "meaning" of the verse had been changed.My husband has his degree in Greek. So that's something natural to do here since '79, was to exegete verses that way. I can't tell you the havoc it caused for me trying to do a word-study or any Bible study, period. And when I saw that whole verses had their meaning changed, that was it.To be called "KJV ONLY" one must fall into a camp like the Ruckmanites, that say, the KJV has NO ERRORS AT ALL.I cannot say that. BUT, as far as my Bible of choice for memorization, so that I can get a good handle on word-studies ... the KJV is what I commit to memory only.We really do need to be a little more relaxed here and don't worry about who reads what.I will and have posted what I just wrote once in a while, but that's it. People have to come to their own conclusions and keep the version of their choice, because free-will means choice and so does "heresy".Choice is the definition of "heresy" in the Greek.So ho-hum, and after being called an idiot, I hope you'll forget this whole thread and go do a nice word-study in the Greek on "Peace" and let by-gones be by-gones and let everyone read whatever makes them happy. :-)MeAgain wrote:..................Anyhow .... Stever .... I don't know much about you ... but may I ask you which "KJV-Only" ministries do you associate with ? Are you in a KJV ONLY camp or do you just personally prefer that version for yourself ?I only ask, because there is a huge difference here and I'd like to know what Sites you frequent or trust.Equity for all & Love, AnniexxxxxxxxxxxxxStever responds:Thank you for asking. For years I read the NIV. In fact I was quite disapointed when I could not find a Strongs Concordance for the NIV, but at the time, the King James only. I purchased it and it sat on the shelf. Then, fast forward several years. The Church I attended started posting all of the scripture that the Pastor quoted on a movie screen by the use of Microsoft Powerpoint.On the evening of 6/4/1999 I received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Minutes later my wife also received this Baptism.Several weeks later I just happened to bring an Old King James Bible that I had to Church. I was the only one even carrying a Bible that day. In any event, the Scripture quoted on the screen that was the NIV version of the Bible did not square with the King James that I had in my hands.After much personal study, and then reading the works of others, I came to the sincere conclusion that the newer versions, and especially the NIV are full of error and are watering down the Doctrine of God's Word. The King James stays true to that Word.Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today see nothing wrong with allowing practicing homosexuals to pastor Churches? Is it a coincidence that many, many Christians of today think that active homosexuals that belong to a Church and say that they are "saved" really believe that these people are saved? Is is a coincidence that many, many Christians are involved with adultery and divorce--at the same rate as the "unchurched" world? Is is a coincidence that supposed "Christians" of today are involved with pornography on the internet, and don't have the knowledge or understanding to know that they have to repent of their sin and ask God for forgiveness, and then turn away from it? The answer is no.The reason for this paradigm change in my mind is nothing more than all of the newer versions that have erased God's very commands from His Word. The newer versions hit the scene in the late 1960's, and the Churches that have changed from the KJV to the NIV during that time (or other newer versions) are the ones that are involved in all of the error mentioned in my paragraph above.That is it, plain and simple. No matter what I post, or the examples I give, others disagree. The responses sound nothing more than "He said,,,,She said". I find no problem with that. My eyes are open and I am compelled by the Holy Spirit to present this truth to all those who will listen.God bless,Stever
To Chris,You may be interested to know that this book is only SOLD by chick publications. The author is independant from them. They just sale it because they like it.There are alot of distributers of certain books, but that is so they can make a profit, it's just business. I know, I've heartd all the storys about this reading material you have mentioned, but, frankly, I have to say, so what? Has it been proven? And, the answer would be no.
I feel as though it took all of 3 days to resume the mudslinging, and it's kind of frustrating. As far as "royal idiots" are concerned, I think we should read Matthew 5:22 and realize the seriousness of our words. I'm not a moderator (obviously) but once again I ask that we return to Ron's (phililogos) original intention, which was educating us all in a civil manner why he prefers the KJV. I think that if we have questions for him, or wish to discuss and clarify the things he presents for our edification, great. Let us discuss. But if we wish to argue why Jesus did or did not personally return to earth in 1611 to create the only perfect word of God in English, lets take it to another thread. It will save some of us here some sanity, I suppose :-)
Hi J-bird...!You may be interested to know that this book is only SOLD by chick publications. The author is independant from them. They just sale it because they like it.There are alot of distributers of certain books, but that is so they can make a profit, it's just business. I know, I've heartd all the storys about this reading material you have mentioned, but, frankly, I have to say, so what? Has it been proven? And, the answer would be no.Oh, I knew that Chick didn't publish the booklet. I read that book several years ago, and it has been recommended to me by several KJV-only friends. My statement about Chick Publications was only meant as a sidenote, since you listed their website. About the booklet itself: I do not agree with it. While it does educate the reader about the topic, it's "answers" are not very sound. Even in his first "answer" -- Gipp identifies himself as believing that the KJV is the perfect "preserved" Word of God. In fact, he continues by stating that we no longer need any older texts or even "original" texts. He even calls a desire for original texts "plainly unscriptural." http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_01.aspThe rest of his answers are similar. They do not provide any credible information -- just the same argument that is often presented by the most extreme of KJV-only believers. Gipp defends the obvious mistranslation of Acts 12:4 in the KJV -- even though most Bible scholars (and even some KJV-only believers) admit that it is a mistranslation. But according to Gipp, this proves that the KJV was the only version to "get it right."...Now, concerning the direction of this thread -- and nearly all of the KJV-only threads: These discussions often tend to become highly argumentive because, like Stever said, many feel or claim that the "Holy Spirit directs" them to write their posts. It is possible to state a case for the KJV (like our brother philologos) without slandering other translations or the adherents readers of other translations. But often, these KJV-only threads turn into yet another "NIV-bashing." It is sad -- and something I usually try to ignore. It seems that the most common "defense" for the KJV is an "attack" on the other translations. Also, it seems that these threads continue without allowing room for people that disagree. I feel that there is room for discussion without such it turning into an "I'm right -- you're wrong -- because Jesus told me so" type of debate. But like many threads, people that disagree are often dismissed as being "blind" or "ignorant" of "the truth." This is a sad position to take -- and even much more so when this is blamed on the Holy Spirit.I would also like to reiterate that I read both the KJV and the NIV (among a few other versions). The KJV is my favorite -- and what I feel to be the best translation taken from the Received Text. However, I also like the NIV, and I consider it one of the best translations from the other diverse texts. :-)
BTW did anyone get to look at the Geneva Bible image I referenced in an earlier post? What did you think of it? Would you prefer a 'clean text' as Tyndale's 1526 translation or one with 30% of the text as 'added by the folks in Geneva?It is interesting that the Geneva Bible must have had the same kind of effect on its readers as the Scofield Bible had. To read the 'scriptures' with a constant background of interpretation shapes minds powerfully, for good or ill. I suspect that Scofield's Bible did more to influence the mind-set of generations of dispensationalists than any books or sermons published on the topic.It is just me or do you get irritated when people intersperse their translations with interpretations and comments? We do need to constantly remind ourselves that something is not true just because a godly expert says it. The doctine of verbal inspiration does not include the Geneva notes nor Mr Scofield's nor even the marginal cross-references. :-D an another front...I am working my way through some of Gipps Questions on the Chick site. Not many problems with Q1 and the originals but have screeched to a halt in Q2. The heavy braking being caused by the phrase "God's Authorized Bible". It's going to be difficult to take him seriously after this statement. :-) This kind of statement is not likely to be the comment of someone who works from reasons to conclusions but who starts with conclusions and then works his way back through the reasons. It is sometimes summed up in the little aphorism "don't confuse me with the facts, I have made my mind up" :-) EDIT: I have just scanned Gipps Q&A from Chick Publications. I don't think I have ever read such nonsense in a Christian source. His knowledge of English History is appalling and almost wholly inaccurate. His claims that the KJV is better than the original Greek is breathtaking. His reasoning is bizarre. I am a lover, reader, and student of the KJV. It is my version of choice for meditation, study and preaching. There is a reasonable case that can be made for the continuing use of the KJV, but Gipps is an embarrassment to any reasonable case.
Hi Ron,His claims that the KJV is better than the original Greek is breathtaking. Wow! No that is wild. I heard a statement once that says that a translation of an original document is like kissing the bride through a vail. Now I'm trying to come to terms with how a person could actually prefer the vail to the bride in this scenerio. It is also another one of the reasons why I am cautious about using Chick publications materials; there is just too much extremism in the writings.
Wow!!! :-? You guys really tore that apart :-( See if I share any of my info with you again!! :-x JUST KIDDING!!!! :-P
PTywama3Quote:I hate to sound bitter and combative, here, but you sound like a royal idiot. I'm not sure if you're familiar with standard bibliographic techniques, but in the western world that involves publication date, access date and location (ala web address) for electronic media, author if available, and name. There's more for standard printed media, but I figure it to be mostly irrelevant.You quote improperly and bury such statements in a passage of text in a fashion consistant with PLAGIARSIM, and then arguementatively come back when multiple board members request not only a simpler version and more easily followable version of the same material you post, but also a more appropriate and reliable venue. You claim to not understand the original languages and so are not inclined to be considered a linguist or subsequent analyst, yet fervantly interact within this very topic.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's reply:I did quote my source, and have quoted the same source here before. I did "cut and paste", by cutting and pasting the beginning of Chapter 4, pages 43-45 of the Book, "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones. I have the internet version, that I downloaded for free, as well as the published version that I purchased. For many years Dr. Jones provided the majority of his works on-line for free. I have one of those versions, that I downloaded in zip format, as well as the other version that I purchased (mentioned above).In regards to plagiarism, I offer this from the cover of Dr. Jones Book, Which Version is the Bible:"This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission."Stever continues:This is a very complex, deep study that I pray other Christians will do on their own. The reason for the length of the posts is the difficulty in explaining complex issues in simple terms. I really do not apologize for their length, as long as only one Christian is reached with the truth. And what is that truth? That the newer versions are dangerously flawed for the Christian, who is already saved, that wants to mature spiritually.God bless,Stever
Stever posts:All of the information below can be found at http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/kjvbook.htmlAnd is the work of David B. Loughran (April 14, 1931 - August 12, 2000) Founder - Stewarton Bible School - Stewarton, ScotlandDavid posts this information, as part of his work "WHICH VERSION" that can be found at the above internet site.["If you are reading this article on the Internet, you are reminded that SBS publications do not carry a copyright clause. Feel free to download, print, photocopy and pass this article to your friends, because, believe it or not, the world is currently being starved of the real Word of God, the HOLY BIBLE! A great spiritual famine is overtaking mankind and, as I was, the Christian Church is blissfully ignorant of its danger. This article will answer the question: " Which English Bible is the real Word of God?"]David writes: [" Since my conversion in 1952, when I was 21 years old, I have used a number of modern versions and translations of the Bible: the Revised Version, Moffatt Bible, Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible, the Living Bible, the New English Bible, Knox Bible, Good News for Modern Man, Amplified Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard and the New International Version. During all that time I also used the King James Version (KJV), also called the Authorised Version. But never in all those 45 years did I suspect that anything was seriously amiss with the modern Bibles: or that they are all dangerously flawed! To be sure I knew that some paraphrased publications, such as the Living Bible, could not be relied upon when deciding doctrine: and that others had several uninspired books (the Apocrypha): but never in the past 45 years did I suspect that EVERY modern English Bible cannot truthfully be called the HOLY BIBLE, the WORD OF GOD! When and how did I find out? Let me tell you my story. In February 1996 at the age of 65 years I suffered a massive heart attack and was forced to spend weeks in bed. I was unable to move around much, and even a short walk was an ordeal. For months I was virtually house-bound. What did I do? I did the very best thing I could; I gave myself over to prayer and Bible study. There really was little else I could manage without pain. With the help of several reference books and modern versions of the Bible - I possess about 20 - I began an exhaustive study of the History of the Bible: of how we got our Bible in the first place. This article tells of my findings: of facts so stunning that they shocked me more than any truth I have ever learned; including that of the true weekly Sabbath and Festivals of the God of Israel. I felt horrified to think that as the founder of Stewarton Bible School (SBS), with students in many countries, I had been deceived for so long and had been guilty of giving sincere students faulty advice. I determined - yea I prayed desperately - that if JEHOVAH (Yahweh) the LORD God of Hosts would allow me to recover after a triple by-pass heart operation, I would join the growing band of believers who honour the King James Version and tell the world. This article is the result of my studies and I thank the Almighty for allowing me to live and place it on the Internet. The facts you are about to learn need to be studied prayerfully, several times over. Particular attention should be given to Part Two where many King James Bible texts are listed for comparison with the modern version/s you may currently be using. I will quote extensively from the reference books on Bible History mentioned in Part Three. Remember that emphasis (bold type) throughout this article is mine.]David writes: PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION Millions also believe in the providential preservation of the Bible: that JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel has also preserved His Word down through the ages; and that His work of preservation is every bit as important as His initial work of inspiration. After all it would have been of limited value if the original inspired Scriptures were lost to posterity a few decades after being penned. Providential preservation, in other words, is as essential a work as that of divine inspiration. Our faith in providential preservation is based on Bible texts such as:* 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. (Psalm 12: 6-7) * Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven111: Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever152: Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. * I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. (Ecclesiastes 3:14) * Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35) * Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever The word of the Lord endureth for ever. (1Peter 1:23-25)Concerning Providential Preservation the Westminster Confession of Faith (17th century) says this on page 23:"The Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them." In the past most Christians accepted these facts, but of late there are a growing number who have strong reservations about divine preservation. They will allow that the original autographs, which of course are no longer available, were inspired. But they have strong reservations about divine preservation. They believe that much of Scripture is in need of update, because some of the oldest manuscripts were not available to the 17th century translators of the King James Version (KJV). That is why, they maintain, the Revised Version of 1881 and its many descendants became necessary; and how that each new English translation (well over 100 at the present count) is an improvement on the one that went before.In other words, the Bible is also evolving and each new version brings us one step nearer the original.This is an extremely disturbing development: for when we examine modern translations, which are all based on the Revised Version, we find they do not simply use modern language, which, arguably, may have been in order; but they say things entirely different from the early English and foreign language versions of the Scriptures, which in past centuries God used to further His work. In this article you are about to learn many startling facts about the modern English translations of the Bible, that they:* All present conflicting messages with the King James Version (KJV) and even with each other. * Omit many words, verses and passages of Scripture. * All cast doubt on the accuracy of the KJV and several fundamental doctrines taught in it, such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, his divinity, his miracles, his bodily ascension to heaven and his second coming. * All disagree on major doctrinal points with other early European versions of the Bible which triggered the great Protestant Reformation and for which tens of thousands of true believers died during the dark ages. * Are warmly welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church which has long considered the King James Bible its number one enemy.These discoveries are disturbing to say the least and should cause true believers around the world to ask: Is all this true? Are these allegations justified? And if so, what spirit is behind the deception and confusion caused by the modern translations? Visit any Bible study group where believers are using a variety of modern "Bibles" and comments such as these are common:* 'My Bible puts it this way.' * 'My Bible doesn't even have that verse.' * 'Listen to this Note about ancient and more reliable manuscripts.' * 'My Bible says something totally different.' * 'My Bible says the very opposite.'The question is: Which English Bible is the real Word of God? Anyone can see that they cannot all be the Word of God if they are saying different things. After all, God doesn't contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of confusion. (1Corinthians 14:33) Scores of conflicting translations, all claiming to be His Word, cannot possibly be the work of the Spirit of Jehovah. Besides, would the Almighty flood the English-speaking world with well over 100 conflicting translations of the whole Bible and over 300 translations of the New Testament? Of course not: the very idea is ludicrous if not blasphemous. Something is terribly wrong somewhere and it's time to find out.xxxxxxxxxxxGod bless,Stever
Scores of conflicting translations, all claiming to be His Word, cannot possibly be the work of the Spirit of Jehovah. Besides, would the Almighty flood the English-speaking world with well over 100 conflicting translations of the whole Bible and over 300 translations of the New Testament? Of course not: the very idea is ludicrous if not blasphemous. Something is terribly wrong somewhere and it's time to find out.Steve,The KJV is obviously one of these many translations. My question to you is how does one know that the KJV is "the" preserved word of God? My NASB teaches about the preservation of the word of God too. If I knew nothing about the Bible, and simply found two lying side by side, one NASB and another KJV, how would I know which one is "the right version?" Also, how do you know that the KJV didn't simply add verses and words that you claim other versions have ommited? Maybe King James is guilty of adding to the word of God and the modern versions are simply a scrubbing away of such filthy additions?Also, if I were somebody in France, and didn't speak any English, which version of the Bible should I use?
Hi Stever, I guess us KJV only people are few and far between on here. I enjoyed your article, very informative. We have a saying in the south, "if it's not broke, don't fix it". The KJV has stood the test of time, and it was good enough for the men and women of whom I admire the most in the days gone by, so therefore it's good enough for me. New bibles come and go, but the KJV has stood firm. However, this topic is going nowhere. Kinda seems like a dead issue. :-(
BeYeDoers wrote:"................ But if we wish to argue why Jesus did or did not personally return to earth in 1611 to create the only perfect word of God in English, lets take it to another thread. It will save some of us here some sanity, I suppose :-)" XXXXXXXXXXXXXStever's response:You have to be kidding, aren't you? The texts that the King James relies upon is the received text, the majority text. The work of men like Erasmus, Stephanus, with the help of all of the letters and writings of the early Church Fathers restored the majority text, the Textus Receptus. Their work and others predated the Reformation and made the reformation possible. Men actually gave their lives for their faith. They were burned at the stake and murdered by whom? The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did everything in it's power to stop the proliferation and spread of the Restored Text. The fine for printing a bible at that time was death by burning at the stake!The fine for even having your own bible was the same-death by burning at the stake.The Catholic Church, and the Catholic Bible do not follow the Received Text, the Textus Receptus, but the faulty Alexandrian Text. The Alexandrian text is the same text that is relied upon by all of the NEWER Bible versions TODAY.What the Catholic Church was not able to do has been accomplished by the newer versions that have come on the scene since Westcott and Hort in the late 1800's and continues to this very day.God bless,SteverP.S. Have you had a chance to read Foxe's Book of the Martyrs?
J-bird wrote:Hi Stever, I guess us KJV only people are few and far between on here. I enjoyed your article, very informative. We have a saying in the south, "if it's not broke, don't fix it". The KJV has stood the test of time, and it was good enough for the men and women of whom I admire the most in the days gone by, so therefore it's good enough for me. New bibles come and go, but the KJV has stood firm. However, this topic is going nowhere. Kinda seems like a dead issue. :-( xxxxxxxxxxStever's response:Well, thanks for joining in. Before you go onto other topics, do you have anything to add that might help to clarify this issue for others that do not understand what is at stake?Whatever you might add would be appreciated.God bless,Stever
Don't ask me why, but I felt to post something here again ... didn't think I would.But I remembered a website that was even commended by Jacob Prasch the "KJV ONLY MOVEMENT PHOBIAC".The site is http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/... click on the left on "Articles".Again, before we start throwing stones around here again ... it is very important to not name call people and if you're going to call someone "KJV ONLY", be sure you know what that means anymore in Christian circles.I'll take it maybe from some I know here, but if it were from someone I didn't know as well ... I would feel the need to defend myself, that I do not think the KJV is Flawless .... and I'm not a Neo Nazi, Mormon, Timothy McVeigh, Identity Movement, Kabbalist,nefarius imbecile, etc. etc. just because I need to use the KJV for word-studies, etc.Quoting Prasch with all of those names and nonsense.http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/ruckmanism/truth_about_KJV_only.htmUnless this article has been edited since I first read it, there is a lot of "name calling" in it too. He went 'over the top' on this one and grouped people together into suspicious little circles, like Gail Riplinger, in with all those nasty titles I put in above.I don't go for name calling Teachers ... sorry.Long before Jimmy Swaggart fell, we threw him out of our house (TV), because of his name calling in his sermons.Well, calling someone "KJV ONLY" now-a-days is a heavy charge as you'll see from Mr. Prasch's article :-( .A man can write 1000 good articles and then really get off on one or two things, and I mean way off. So never be the type to say, "My man, right or wrong"... because being human, they're not inerrant, and I find those who sit under the teachings of and faithfully following one person "right or wrong', who name calls, will become a name caller themselves. O.K., this member of the peanut gallery blabbered enough.God's Love & Peace.
Why is it if you use the KJV ONLY you always get labeled an extremist? I know there are people who are men followers, who don't even know why they are KJV only, they just do it because their leaders tell them it's right. But let me ask you a question. Many of you, if A.W.Tozer, or Leonard Ravenhill, or David Wilkerson, or someone like that says it, you don't ask questions, you just believe that this is the man of God, and you would hope that he would bring you the truth as well as he knows how. So, why is it so bad for others to believe what their teachers are telling them and just go with it. Remember, that not everyone is as educated as you or even me, not that I am highly educated, but, I do have some. If my forefathers who had little or no education, trusted and believed that they had the word of God, and they lived lives of holiness, and loved God, and were, for the most part, stronger christians than most of us will ever be, because of their SIMPLE faith. Than that's all I need to go by. I believe that the days are coming when, if you believe that the KJV is the word of God than you will be labeled an extremist, and be compared to alquida, or these other religious extremist groups. And we will be hunted down and murdered by the millions. The NIV is part of the NEW AGE MOVEMENT. A new bible for, a new God. The Antichrist is setting up a new church, with a new gospel, and a new form of worship. He's preparing his church, of which he will easily step into during the tribulation, since they will be full of false converts. He's gonna send a "strong delusion so they will believe a lie and be damned,". You can keep your fake bibles, I don't want any part of them. They emit a fowl odor when you open them, and, I for one can't stand the stinch. I know this will probably make some of you mad, but, I'm tired of being nice about it. The truth is the truth. I never was good at being a "men pleaser" anyhow. You get on here and call us nazis, and extremists, and try to force your opinions on people that are trying to reveal the truth to you, because they love you, and they are concerned for your spiritual well being, and you disrespect them, and call them names, in round about sort of way, and bash the material that they are trying to help you with, and nick/pick it to death. Keep you'r fake bibles then. Just remember this, if you question everything than sooner or later you'r gonna find something wrong with everything. Some of you think you'r soooooo smart, you've got it all figured out don't you? I for one don't know everything, and I don't even know what I do know well. But I'll go to my grave knowing I have the word of God. I don't care what Dr. smellfungus says. :-D
KingJimmy wrote:Steve,The KJV is obviously one of these many translations. My question to you is how does one know that the KJV is "the" preserved word of God? My NASB teaches about the preservation of the word of God too. If I knew nothing about the Bible, and simply found two lying side by side, one NASB and another KJV, how would I know which one is "the right version?" xxxxxxxxxStever's response: You can always tell the difference by the fruit that each provides. The text behind the King James, the Textus Receptus, the "Received Text" that followed the work of Erasmus and others created the Reformation. The Reformation, started in the early part of the 16th century (early 1500's) was responsible for the creation of Protestanism. It was also responsible for creating world-wide evangelism that has never been duplicated. The Great Awakening, that started in the 1700's is only one example. Other examples of the "Good Fruit" provided by the KJV are:The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than QUESTIONING ITS AUTHORITY. xxxxxxThe newer translations have not produced the Good Fruit that the KJV has. The New Versions of scripture are producing baby Christians who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.The newer versions have blurred Gods warning to sins of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, & bestiality. God's doctrine has been watered down in all of the newer versions. That is what we find there- the minimization and watering down of God's Word!The newer versions have spawned: 1) Divorce in the Church Body at the same levels as society as a whole. 2) Pornography at levels of 50% in males, and 45% in females in the Church Body. This fascination of pornography has also infected our Pastors at almost the very same levels. 3)Fornication within the Church body at almost the same levels as society at large. 4)Co-habitation with another of the opposite sex, before marriage, at almost the same levels as society. 5) No revivals of the scope of those that occurred in the past that used the KJV Bible.Those are just some of the fruits of the NIV and the newer versions!!!!xxxxxx In conclusion:The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It's easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them "by their fruit", and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.God bless,Stever
From the Click website at: http://www.chick.com/QUESTION: What is a "Ruckmanite?" ANSWER: "Ruckmanite" is a name Bible critics call anyone who disagrees with them. EXPLANATION: Peter Sturges Ruckman was born in 1921. He has spent years studying the manuscript history of the Bible. He received his doctorate in philosophy from Bob Jones University.He has personally founded or helped to found dozens of churches. He is the founder and president of the Pensacola Bible Institute in Pensacola, Florida, where he has trained hundreds of preachers, missionaries and Christian laymen. He has also authored over forty books and Bible commentaries. He is, without a doubt, the most outspoken champion of the King James Bible in this generation. He is considered an extremely dangerous foe to the Bible critics who teach that God has not preserved His Bible perfect. (In spite of Psalm 12:6, 7). His arsenal consists of an above average intellect, years of studying Bible manuscripts and a caustic delivery. This abrasive preaching style so offends (and scares) today's limpwristed "soldiers of the Lord" that they shrink from any confrontation with him, OR the facts he presents. ALL Bible critics claim to believe that the Bible is the "perfect word of God without a mixture of error." They make this claim to deceive the people in their congregations. They live in fear that a member of their congregation will pick up one of Dr. Ruckman's many books and discover the difference between someone who "claims" to believe that the Bible is perfect and someone who really does. Many Christians on their own, have concluded that the Bible (King James Bible) is the absolute perfect word of God. They, in complete innocence, will question their pastor's "improvements" on scripture and suddenly find themselves denounced as a "Ruckmanite. " In many cases they have never even heard of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman. This denunciation is a simple yet desperate tactic. No Christian wants to be guilty of "following a man." Therefore, the Bible critic reasons that if Bible believers can be accused of "man following" they will discard their conviction and humbly follow them. I once met a preacher who rejected the thought of being grouped with Bible believers because he would then be a "Ruckmanite." He claimed, " I don't follow any man." This sounds very pious. He later informed me that he was a "Calvinist." (A follower of the teachings of the man, John Calvin). So, today, anyone who really believes that the Bible is the perfect word of God without a mixture of error AND can produce it instead of just talk about it can expect to be called a "Ruckmanite" by someone who feels threatened by their faith and confidence. xxxxxxxxGod bless,Stever
Stever wrote:You can always tell the difference by the fruit that each provides. The newer translations have not produced the Good Fruit that the KJV has. The New Versions of scripture are producing baby Christians who do not even know what the word of God is, much less where to find it. The new translations produce spiritual babies who are incapable of discussing Bible doctrine. The new versions produce NEWER versions, which produce MONEY for the publishers, and I Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of MONEY is the root of all EVIL.The newer versions have blurred Gods warning to sins of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, & bestiality. God's doctrine has been watered down in all of the newer versions. That is what we find there- the minimization and watering down of God's Word!The newer versions have spawned: 1) Divorce in the Church Body at the same levels as society as a whole. 2) Pornography at levels of 50% in males, and 45% in females in the Church Body. This fascination of pornography has also infected our Pastors at almost the very same levels. 3)Fornication within the Church body at almost the same levels as society at large. 4)Co-habitation with another of the opposite sex, before marriage, at almost the same levels as society. 5) No revivals of the scope of those that occurred in the past that used the KJV Bible.Those are just some of the fruits of the NIV and the newer versions!!!! In conclusion:The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It's easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a Book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author. We shall know them "by their fruit", and I know the King James Bible is the word of God, because it produces GOOD fruit.God bless,SteverThose are very huge sweeping accusations that are not proovable, so your points is mute. They can't even be argued because there is no basis to your argument.Show us the basis of your claime, then we will take what you said seriously.You being a fruit of the KJV reader shouldn't have done that. I could expect that from an NIV reader but a KJV reader devotie? SHAME!!!Enough sarcasm, but where do you find theses facts?I am fruite of multiple translations and I know many KJV readers who have fallen away.
Stevter, thank you for posting your source. I am sorry if I came across as crass. The statement I made was in effect to show you how many people (and I) would view your collective posts, and this does help to solidify your stance.J-bird wrote:You get on here and call us nazis, and extremists, and try to force your opinions on people that are trying to reveal the truth to you, because they love you, and they are concerned for your spiritual well being, and you disrespect them, and call them names, in round about sort of way, and bash the material that they are trying to help you with, and nick/pick it to death.J-bird, you might consider that when I say I have met a hundred people, all with these same thoughts and feelings, that told me seventy different things, somewhere there has to be a breaking point. Unfortunately, this is an emotional arguement that cannot be empirically backed.
Hi Logic...Those are very huge sweeping accusations that are not proovable, so your points is mute. They can't even be argued because there is no basis to your argument.Show us the basis of your claime, then we will take what you said seriously.You being a fruit of the KJV reader shouldn't have done that. I could expect that from an NIV reader but a KJV reader devotie? SHAME!!!Enough sarcasm, but where do you find theses facts?I am fruite of multiple translations and I know many KJV readers who have fallen away.I agree. In fact, this extremist branch of the KJV-only movement seems to border on cultish. It seems that since many believers see the KJV as perfect, preserved and flawless -- then it seems to indicate translation worship. The KJV is a good translation. But to claim that it is perfect using arguments that slander all other translations (and translators) is dangerous. :-(
Why is it if you use the KJV ONLY you always get labeled an extremist?Because KJV ONLY is an extreme and unreasonable position. It is because 'KJV ONLY" defame every other translation and many godly men in the process. It is because 'KJV ONLY' make such extreme statements such as those who claim the KJV is actually more inspired that the Greek manuscripts. These are the reasons why some people call them extremists.There is a reasonable case to be made for maintaining the KJV and using it as a base for serious bible study and personal devotion but there is no case to be made for the notion that God broke into a process of textual restoration and created a 'perfect version' and then froze the process; this is not faith nor reason, it is superstition.
Peter Sturges Ruckman has no love if you have ever heard him, which I have. He calls people Nig**s and he makes fun of the bretheren and he is also a fruit of the KJV. He has has non of these traits axept for being a tinkling cymbal, and have not haveing charity, he is nothing, he profiteth anyone nothing. 1Corinth 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; :6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; :7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. :8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. :10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. :11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. :12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. :13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
What is sad, is that when a person "is" in the KJV ONLY camps, and I mean the "real" ones, and not just us who prefer the KJV ... it tends to bring hurts and divisions between a lot of good people.I didn't know until 'this' page where everybody stood on this issue. And maybe because I'm just female, but my heart hurts now and my eyes are tearing. I feel so badly to see "what version" turn into such a cause for division.Good people on here getting upset with each other and all.You're all good people in my book, but to take a topic and shred the daylights out of each other over it, is also "over the top".I pray for unity here. I like my e-sword like I posted last year and there is one Version that I particularly like, called the ALT. I also hit the "compare button" on the e-sword as I also told about before, just to see which version comes closest to the Greek.But I memorize the KJV for all the reasons I gave before.I pray this can end with peace and friendly dialog and if not, then maybe if the issue is that important to tear folks apart, then they should find a KJV ONLY Forum to have some peace for themselves.I mean no one any harm ... and I don't want to see anyone leave ... but this thread has been very hard on some of us and it's painful to watch this tearing apart of the Body.I pray Peace and hope we can covet it.Thanks for hearing me out.Annie
Stever posts to ccchhhrrriiisss:I could find no books written by Floyd Nolen Jones available for sale or viewing at the click website. Books by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones can be found at:1)\tAmazon.com2)\thttp://www.pilkingtonandsons.com/floydjones.htmSome of his books that are available:1. The Chronology of the Old Testament: Back to the Basics2. The Septuagint, a Critical Analysis3. An Analytical Red Letter harmony of the Four Gospels: A return to the Historical Text (Authorized Version) with Chronological Compendium4. Which Version is the BibleGod bless,Stever
Logic wrote:Those are very huge sweeping accusations that are not proovable, so your points is mute. They can't even be argued because there is no basis to your argument.Show us the basis of your claime, then we will take what you said seriously.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: The basis of my claim is right in front of us, all of us. The majority of the Church body in America has replaced the KJV with the NIV or other newer versions. When did this happen? Systematically, starting in the late 1960's. It is very seldom that you walk into ANY Church today and find the KJV in the pews. They have all been replaced with another gospel, the newer versions gospel that has no power.I was born in 1942 and the Christian America that I grew up in did not believe in Divorce, fornication, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality,stealing, lying, etc.Today, all of those same sins are inside the Church. My previous post listed all of the things going on WITHIN the Christian Body. Also, I never mentioned other issues----Active homosexuals have become Bishops of the Episcopal Church, as well as other church bodies. Practicing Homosexuals today actually think that they are saved. Even many Christians today think that practicing homosexuals will all be in heaven. Pre-marital counselling no longer assumes that both of the young people they are talking to are celibate, much less assume that they are not actively having sex with each other.In my part of the world, America, I can see this slide from righteousness to sin. Is it just coincidence that the Bible which is doctrinally sound on all of these issues (the King James) has been replaced by one that is doctrinally weak (the NIV and other newer versions)?Truth is not a complicated issue, at least not from where I sit and from what I have seen in my own lifetime.God bless,Stever
Stever's response: You can always tell the difference by the fruit that each provides. The text behind the King James, the Textus Receptus, the "Received Text" that followed the work of Erasmus and others created the Reformation. The Reformation, started in the early part of the 16th century (early 1500's) was responsible for the creation of Protestanism. It was also responsible for creating world-wide evangelism that has never been duplicated. The Great Awakening, that started in the 1700's is only one example. Other examples of the "Good Fruit" provided by the KJV are:The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than QUESTIONING ITS AUTHORITY. As great as that is, if I were to find the two in the middle of a field and didn't know all this other stuff, how would I know which one to use? For that matter, I know great on-fire Christians, that make use of the NASB and other texts. How about the fruit from their lives and ministries? For that matter, it's rather presumptious to assert that the reason these men you mention were so great was because of the KJV. As great as their fruit was, perhaps they were limited in their fruit because of the KJV. Maybe they might have had more fruit if they used the NASB or something else?Men are not the fruit of the KJV/NIV/NASB etc. We are connected to Christ, not versions of the Bible. As Paul said, he planted, Apollos watered, but it was God that gave the increase. The fruit of the Spirit evident in our lives has to do with the life of Christ flowing through us and our obeying Him. Proof of this is in the fact that all these great reformation denominations like Lutheranism quickly fell into a backslidden state shortly after their inception, yet they had the TR as their basis. So, if you are going to praise the TR for it's fruit, you can't ignore the bad apples either. Also, to my knowledge many of the missionary societies and translating groups today responsible for producing Bible's in foreign languages where the gospel is not yet established, are often the product of modern seminaries and universities, and thus make use of the more modern Greek texts as the basis of their translations. Also, if you know anything about global Christianity, you'll know that right now the faith is spreading more than it has ever in places like Asia and S. America, and frankly, makes the Protestant Reformation, Great Awakenings, and the "Century of Missions" like simply waking a morning slumber prior to taking a shower. More "modern texts" are probably being used rather than the TR.The fact of the matter is this, there are great and outstanding men of God that use the KJV only, and likewise, great men of God who make use of several translations. Likewise, there are total wacko's and false prophets that do such as well with both.So, now, if I were to simply find the KJV and NASB in the middle of a field, how would I determine which is the best translation to use? Hopefully Ron will get back up in this and let me know :)
In my part of the world, America, I can see this slide from righteousness to sin. Is it just coincidence that the Bible which is doctrinally sound on all of these issues (the King James) has been replaced by one that is doctrinally weak (the NIV and other newer versions)?It is interesting you mention this type of logic. For all the things you say the church is weak on, I am strong about, and I use the NASB. In fact, I'm rather shocked that more people aren't, and some of these same people use the KJV. I know people with KJV's and that have grown up in KJV only churches to still be big adulterers, liars, etc. To me, it seems like people are simply less interested in obeying the Scriptures, no matter what translation they use.
philologos wrote:
Why is it if you use the KJV ONLY you always get labeled an extremist?Because KJV ONLY is an extreme and unreasonable position. It is because 'KJV ONLY" defame every other translation and many godly men in the process. It is because 'KJV ONLY' make such extreme statements such as those who claim the KJV is actually more inspired that the Greek manuscripts. These are the reasons why some people call them extremists.xxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's responsePhilologos, you state specifically: "It is because 'KJV ONLY' make such extreme statements such as those who claim the KJV is actually more inspired that the Greek manuscripts."xxxxxxxStever posts:When you are analyzing the Greek Manuscripts---what are you missing in order to put all of the pieces together, to make sure that you are certain you have the original Words of God? You are missing the writings of ALL of the early Church Fathers.Josh McDowell writes on pages 16-17 of his book Answers to Tough Questions. Quote: "...Translation of a document into another language was rare in the ancient world, so this is an added plus for the New Testament. The number of copies of the versions is in excess of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the New Testament text. Even if we did not possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions, the text of the New Testament could still be reproduced within 250 years from its composition. How? By the writing of the early Christians."In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote biblical text, thus giving us another witness to the text of the New Testament.Josh McDowell continues, on pages 16-17 of his book Answers to Tough Questions."John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before A.D.325. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world."THE CHURCH FATHERS Before the art of printing was known (before AD 1450) the church fathers of the early Christian era wrote - by hand - their letters, sermon notes, commentaries and books. Their manuscripts contain many quotations from the original autographs or the earliest copies. Some fathers had actually seen the New Testament autographs or very early copies; and had personally hand-copied large portions of Scripture. The writings of these early elders help verify the original text and form a valuable source of information as to what the first apostles wrote. Scripture tells us that Satan began his attack on the New Testament Scriptures very early, even before the first apostles died. Listen to Paul's testimony concerning this matter about corrupting of the Word of God; and of some who even wrote letters as though they were composed by the apostle himself. Paul writes:2 Cor.2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.2 Thess.2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.During the latter part of his life the apostle John strongly defended the Word of God. Being an eye-witness of many events involving the ministry of Jesus Christ, John was well qualified to refute written or spoken error and to put the record straight. The enemies of truth had this reliable eye-witness banished to the island of Patmos.John writes:Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThat is what is missing from your anyalsis Philologos, as well as the analysis and work of Westcott and Hort, and all of the others since. If I look at the personal writings of Westcott and Hort (that I previously posted on sermonindex) themselves, they tell us that they were not interested in any of this (the actual writings of all of the early Church Fathers). They were interested in replacing the Received text with something else. They were successful in doing just that.We have the restoration of God's Word in the Work of Erasmus and all of the others, with the culmination of the King James Bible. We truly have it all there and have no need to keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There is fruit with the KJV. What has been the fruit, as you see it, with the NIV and all of the newer versions?I would really like to know.God bless,Stever
Jesus was a perfect gentelman, he would'nt force anything on anyone, including salvation. I would never slap someones hand away from using another translation. I believe if they are sincerely searching for the truth God will show it to them. I think most of the time, what get's in peoples way is, their own, carnal wisdom. Were not all like these people you mentioned, there are false prophets in every camp. Personally, I wrestled with this issue for a long period of time, because I wanted to know what was right. I guess what finally sold me on the KJV was, number one, it has stood the test of time, and number two it's the only version that every other version is compared to. If that makes any since.
Truth is from God Himself. If what you say is the truth, it will be revield to all who are seeking. Since it has not yet after so many centuries of other translations. would it actualy be true?I say your view of the state of the world is only because of SIN itself, we live in a fallen world and you cant blaim the church or the Word being put in modern language for what the world is guilty of. I think the Church today is asleep, and that is the reason fo all this degedation of morals. But I don't blaim it on Gods' Word being put in modern language.
The writings of these early elders help verify the original text and form a valuable source of information as to what the first apostles wrote.I think you over emphasize the value of the writings of the early church in the areas of textual criticsm. While they are important, they themsleves don't always agree with the texts they quote. Also, they often make use of paraphrase or simply short illusions to texts. They quote a lot of the NT, but not all of it, nor always accurately. When you are analyzing the Greek Manuscripts---what are you missing in order to put all of the pieces together, to make sure that you are certain you have the original Words of God? I don't understand it Steve. How come you approve of textual criticsm when it favors the TR, but you speak full of contempt of people who simply are trying to do what Erasmus and the KJV translators did? They are all essentially using the same methods. The textual critic has a number of texts before him, and attempt to reconstruct the original text as they think it was based off their examination of manuscripts, writings of the fathers, etc. Essentially this boils down to, how do YOU know that Erasmus got it right, being that you don't know Greek, and haven't examined the actual documents themselves? What makes you think Erasmus got it right, and everybody else wrong?
I'd like to hear what RonB has to say about all of this.If this were a "church" and we all were talking about this face to face, and because of the strife, one of the sisters begins to weep ... and the men just brushed it off and kept going ... I'd never send another soul to that unfeeling Church.I don't mean SI in this, but what I mean is the individual who is going so far extreme, that he could care less that he's slaughtering the truth with the obsessiveness of this.I started agreeing with his earlier posts, and I have Gail Riplinger and other's writings on this subject and know how all these many versions have confused the Body ... but now, it's gone so far that I'm almost ashamed to have ever posted on here at all.I did not backslide or ever go into a false doctrine or Church in the 9 years I read the NIV.I don't like that version anymore but this is nuts now.Patiently waiting for some sense from Ron to redirect us all as a shepherd type into calmer waters and a lot more sense.My respect and His love to all regardless.
I think we need to lighten up a little. When I finally excepted that the KJV was the translation for me, I went on a crusade to "REFORM" everyone else, and God gave me the Whipping of my life. I don't want another one. :-o But, my brother Stever has stood his ground and remained with a christian attitude dispite the name calling. Good job Stever :-D He has been consistent with showing people his side and has kept a cool head. And the thing that really gets me is, he did not start this thread, it was someone fromanother school of thought. Anyway, I think this can be discussed without the name calling and the accusations. I just had to defend him because it looked like he was getting bullyed and I never have liked bullys. ;-)
Hi J-bird,What got me bothered, is that he was polite, and you were too, but once that name Ruckman came up, I almost fell backwards in my chair.Using that name on this Forum is NOT "Defending" the KJV but "Defaming" it.Ruckman is an enemy to the KJV. He's made it so that we can't even discuss the good of something without the insanity that comes out of that man being thrown at all of us from that point on.I can't defend why I like the KJV where Ruckmanism is found. No way.Polite is nice ... but a person can introduce HERESY very politely too.Ruckman is NOT POLITE, though some of his followers may be, as we've seen. But Heresy is Heresy and when you make a preference for the KJV into a stinkin' cult, that Ruckman has ... and then try to FILTHY UP THE KJV with this tripe ... I'm sorry ... I don't care how polite a person is ... when they're doing more harm than good to a reasonable and intelligent discourse on Versions and Manuscripts, and so on ... then IT'S done more harm than good.And if anyone's bored, waiting for more junk to fly ... we could read a book together, by someone who is pro-kjv ... but ...http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/RuckamnHymers2.htm#4This all may turn out for the good somehow afterall.
To Meagain, I really don't know much about Peter S. Ruckman, but I have heard all kinds of stories. I hear that he is a brilliant scholar with an I.Q. of genius level. This could attest to the radicalism. Most geniuses are very radical. I'm a lover of Martin Luthars writings, he was a brilliant scholar. But I do not agree with every thing he says. Particularly his persecution of the Ana-baptists since I am one. Also his contempt for the Jews. Many of the greatest scholars were very radical. Take John Calvin for instance. He had people put to death because they did not believe in sprinkling as opposed to full immersion. I know my spelling is terrible, never was a strong point of mine. But do you see my point? Were quick to judge others for their strong stance just because someone very radical is from that school of thought. Anyhoo, I like peaceful conversation myself. Spiritual pride and arrogance are a few things that God really hates. :-D
J-Bird said:"But do you see my point? We're quick to judge others for their strong stance just because someone (else) who is very radical is from that school of thought."Stever's response:It seems to happen more often than not in this politically correct world that we live in. What happens? The messenger is tar and feathered, and marginalized, and grouped with the unworthy, and torn to threads. Their reason? To stop the message, that they do not want others to hear.It surely doesn't seem like the Christian thing to do, does it? To categorize websites that offer positions that are different than yours as undesirable and unworthy by labeling them with demeaning names. The best that we can do in the future is to point this out to the guilty party and hopefully they will become aware that their tactics do not work, and that they actually belittle themselves by being involoved in this type of thing (guilt by association).God bless,Stever
Hi MeAgain...What is sad, is that when a person "is" in the KJV ONLY camps, and I mean the "real" ones, and not just us who prefer the KJV ... it tends to bring hurts and divisions between a lot of good people.Well said. As far as I can tell, there aren't any posters that are attempting to discredit the KJV or the translators of the KJV. However, the frequent posts (particularly by Brother Stever) are usually not in defense of the KJV, but rather an all-out attack on the NIV (and all other versions besides the KJV), as well as against the translators and even those that accept other versions. It is perfectly acceptable to hold a belief in the supremacy of the KJV. But such public slanderous attacks on other versions, readers and translators does not seem to be in the best defense of that position.Brother Stever...Stever's response: The basis of my claim is right in front of us, all of us. The majority of the Church body in America has replaced the KJV with the NIV or other newer versions. When did this happen? Systematically, starting in the late 1960's. It is very seldom that you walk into ANY Church today and find the KJV in the pews. They have all been replaced with another gospel, the newer versions gospel that has no power.I was born in 1942 and the Christian America that I grew up in did not believe in Divorce, fornication, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality,stealing, lying, etc.Today, all of those same sins are inside the Church. My previous post listed all of the things going on WITHIN the Christian Body. Also, I never mentioned other issues----Active homosexuals have become Bishops of the Episcopal Church, as well as other church bodies. Practicing Homosexuals today actually think that they are saved. Even many Christians today think that practicing homosexuals will all be in heaven. Pre-marital counselling no longer assumes that both of the young people they are talking to are celibate, much less assume that they are not actively having sex with each other.Yes, there is alot of worldliness and sin in the Church. And while I was not alive during the 1960s, I have heard alot of stories about how great the Church was before that time -- and how sinful it has become since the 1960s. But are you trying to insinuate that the sinfulness in the Church is due to the NIV or NASB? That just seems very silly. You could also say that air conditioning has become much more available since the 1960s. So has in-house bathrooms. So has fast food restaurants. In fact, alot of things have changed since the 1960s. The average home in America now has three television sets. There are many more movie theaters available. Pornography is rampant. Society has become more desensitized to sex, drugs, sensuality and the pride of life because such things sell and are thus more popular in a capitalistic Hollywood that will do anything to make money. But to blame all of this on a translation of the Bible that condemns such sin -- well, it just doesn't make sense. I read the NIV. From reading the NIV, I understand that homosexuality, adultery, loose-living, etc... is sin. In fact, I have never read a verse in the NIV that condoned the sin that you claim the version is "soft" on. Stever, I consider you a brother. And I understand that you truly believe in the flawlessness of the KJV. But there are many of us that have seriously studied this issue and have arrived to a different conclusion. It is easy to pass us off as "having ears but cannot hear." And contrary to what you have alleged many times, I do read your posts. But I have studied this matter with great humility and diligence. I have read your posts. But your posts (including the enormous amounts of information that you copy and paste from other sources) do not convince me at all. As some brothers have pointed out, there is a defense for believing in the supremacy of the KJV -- and even a KJV-only position. But to simply attack all other versions is not the way. And to blame the worldliness of the Church on a translation of the Bible doesn't make sense. Please understand that our rebuttal of your posts is not meant to question your relationship with Christ. But it often appears that when you make blanket statements about people that read the NIV, you are including many of us. I read the NIV (and of course, the KJV) -- and my heart yearns for Christ! He is the entire focus of my life -- and the center of my Universe! I hunger for an even deeper relationship with Christ -- and I seek His face daily. When I read the NIV, I am edified and built up. I often cross-reference the verses with the KJV in order to check what a translation from the RT says. But please do not dismiss us as "immature believers" or "refusing to hear the truth." We also yearn for truth daily. Proper sources are important when attempting to prove a point. But quoting information from secondhand sources (rather than primary sources) which often quote one another -- or the same secondhand "experts" -- is not scholastic or academic research. Primary source material is usually the best -- because all true secondary source material is supposed to be based upon it. In this case, there are not many works that question the validity of the KJV as an academic translation (in fact, I know of none). Yet there are many KJV-only sources that resort to attacks on other version in order to defend their beliefs. This is not research. Nor is it any sort of proper defense. It is simply accusations. This is not an "us against them" type of discussion. Most of us read the KJV. We agree that it is a great translation from the Received Text. And none of us NIV-users are attacking the KJV or the readers of the KJV. But it just often seems the other way around. :-)
Hi J-bird,Before I came to SI, I had taken a nice Sabbatical from many years in the discernment ministy, because I was Burnt out on debate and fighting. That is why I reacted with emotion earlier. I had not seen SI being used like this since I've been here.By "discernment", I hope you understand that that title is nothing more than those who do apologetics against false teachings and cults. So the name Ruckman is far from new to me and the damage he's done for all these many years.I tried from earlier on in this thread to try to see where Stever stood on Ruckman, because I wanted to know if that was his source.He skirted around answering that with his KJV testimony.I tried again to say, let's not press this and let other's have their own choice.Things were starting to show in his posts that he was in that camp, so I gave the definition of heresy to no avail.I saw a brother on here, who I've never seen get upset, getting upset, and that is why I started to appeal to Stever.You say Ruckman is genius ... meaning having exceptional intelligence ... well, may I say that demon possessed people do also, besides just being "radical".I'm sorry that you would compare that man to any of our Classic authors and I wish that you and Stever both, would thouroughly read the link I've left above. Any "man" can make mistakes as you noted of Luther etc., but Ruckman has preached a doctrine that has caused such mockery of those who use the KJV and such schism in the Body of Christ and that's just the tip of the iceberg from that human being.If anyone is to be accused of "spiritual pride and arrogance" it would certainly be Peter Ruckman and the other thing "God really hates" is Satan's ministers transformed as the ministers of righteousness.2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.I don't see where we are to be "polite" to these, even if they are as polite as Mr. Rogers.Hope you'll pray and read that link and research before you compare saints with a cursing heretic.Thanks !Annie
MeAgain (Annie) said:"This all may turn out for the good somehow afterall."Stever's response:God's Word agrees with yours when we find in Romans 8:27-31: 27. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28. AND WE KNOW THAT ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD TO THEM THAT LOVE GOD, TO THEM WHO ARE THE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSE. 29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 31. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?xxxxxxxxxxGod bless,SteverIf God be for us, who can be against us?
MeAgain (Annie) said:"I tried from earlier on in this thread to try to see where Stever stood on Ruckman, because I wanted to know if that was his source.He skirted around answering that with his KJV testimony."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: Before your post tonight I had no idea who Ruckman was. I went to the Click website referred to by another poster, and copied and pasted what it said.If Ruckman is who you say he is, Annie, then I am against him, even if he only relies on the KJV to spew his racism and hate. In conclusion, it is amazing what our minds can do to us, and unto others. How can another "skirt around an issue" if he doesn't have the slightest idea what you are talking about?I think that I have been quite clear where what I have posted comes from, haven't I? First from my own study, and then through the work of others, most of which is Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, and several others. I know that I have made that clear on many posts, but maybe not on the posts that your viewed. If that is the case, then I do apologize.Hope this clarifies it for you, Annie. I surely would not want to place myself any where near to who or what Ruckman is all about. I still am really not sure because I have done no research on him---but your word is good enough for me to place the entire earth between him and me.God bless,Stever For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Listen Stever, This thread threw me because when I first came on to it, you seemed to be "polite", yet actually Two guys I know on here who are normally mild mannered were getting upset.That really puzzled me, because the KJV was not rejected by them, in fact they read it, yet there was turmoil here.Then quotes that they had brought out, such as, the KJV over-rides the Greek and Hebrew, was what got ringers going here. If you can see where some of the things you were posting, line up with what he teaches from that Link I left.I wanted to ask you and did, what websites do you frequent, so I could see if you came near these type teachers. Ruckman is not the only radical out there who teaches that. That's the part where I said you skirted around the question in giving just that testimony.The issues that were causing more than two men to get riled on here, need to be dealt with by them, not me ... but I still feel glad to be able to give Ruckman's background, because there are many off-shoots from his "ministry", that all go way over the line.I will leave this for the men to continue if they choose. I posted my feelings and that link on the previous page and I think that's sufficient evidence towards "extremes", even if they 'appear' good.I wish you nor anyone else here any harm ... that is why I got drawn into this in the first place.God is on the Throne ... not us.May it go well for you, in the eternal scheme of things.Yes God is Love and Truth.Fair well.Annie
The people I mentioned were pretty hard on others that opposed them also. Even to the point of KILLING THEM. I'm not condoning the man, if what you say is true. But, were all sinners, and we all fail, and God will judge this man one day. BELIEVE me. I know exactly what you are talking about. One day when I have time I will share with you my testimony about this type of radicalism. I would even go as far as saying hatred. :-D After all, I am from the south. Not originally. I've seen this kind of racism and hatred and it causes so much bitterness and strife. It's not as bad as it used to be, but it still is a problem. Although I do believe that racism is growing faster and fiercer in the black community than the white community now days. I've heard some say that the white male is the most discriminated against being in the world today. I don't know how true true that is. :-)
The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than QUESTIONING ITS AUTHORITY. Spurgeon also used the Revised Version and particularly commended it for its OT translation. He was less complimentary about the NT. The Revised Version was used by C T Studd, founder of WEC, G H Lang, Graham Scroggie, and many others used the RV in conjuction with the KJV. Campbell Morgan's version of choice was the ASV. Austin Sparkes used various versions. Watchman Nee prefered quotations from the RV so, apparently does Stephen Kuang.This line of reasoning proves nothing.
I didn't want to start a new thread because I don't think this is worth it, but, I was in a Bible study last night reading Acts 6 and we came to Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people." I have a couple af greek references, and there are two diferent greek words here for what Stephen was full of. It sais eather Pistis πίστεως for Faith, or Caris χάρις for grace. I have an interlinier program from here (which is real cool by the way)http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htmthis one has Stephen was full of Caris χάρις for grace, and the E-Sword has Pistis πίστεως for Faith. What greek is the right one, or am I messed up?
When you are analyzing the Greek Manuscripts---what are you missing in order to put all of the pieces together, to make sure that you are certain you have the original Words of God? You are missing the writings of ALL of the early Church Fathers. Have you read "all of the early Church Fathers"? These are the people that Luther preferred to call the 'Early Church Babies' due to the enormous amount of error that was in their writings. I am familiar with the 'Early Church Fathers'. Christopher Wordsworth's NT Commentary relies on them heavily and I have used used Wordsworth's commentary heavily.That is what is missing from your anyalsis Philologos, as well as the analysis and work of Westcott and Hort, and all of the others since. If I look at the personal writings of Westcott and Hort (that I previously posted on sermonindex) themselves, they tell us that they were not interested in any of this (the actual writings of all of the early Church Fathers). They were interested in replacing the Received text with something else. They were successful in doing just that.I am not a fan of Westcott and Hort. I think their work is deeply flawed, but I guarantee that they knew more about the 'EArly Church Fathers' than either of us.We have the restoration of God's Word in the Work of Erasmus and all of the others, with the culmination of the King James Bible. We truly have it all there and have no need to keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There is fruit with the KJV. What has been the fruit, as you see it, with the NIV and all of the newer versions? This line of reasoning is just silly. The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventist, The Christadelphians all BEGAN with the KJV. Their errors were developed while they were using the KJV. What does that prove? Nothing, and neither does your assertion.You still have not told me which editor was right, Erasmus or Stephanus?
I would like a copy of the Geneva Bible in hardcopy but it is way to expensive. The best bibles I like giving out are KJV because they are cheaper than all the other bibles on the shelf. I have read the ESV I did not like it and the RSV NRSV. I dont know what gives me a love of the KJV. I would really like someone to give a detailed analysis of all the different version and the greek and hebrew texts that they come from. I know the Textus Reciptus come from more that one text which was joined together ny erasmus. are these texts still around now?I know you have talked about the Byzatine and Alexandrine texts it would be more smarter.Have any greek texts been lost since?Is there any original text originally written by the apsotles or paul or have all we got is just got is copies there must be some originals around somewhere or have they all gone to dust.How do you define accurate? , philologos
I would really like someone to give a detailed analysis of all the different version and the greek and hebrew texts that they come from. You would need a very extensive library to be able to do that, and a lot of time on your hands.Currently right now, there are an estimated 5,000 greek texts that we get the NT from. Some of these are entire copies of the NT, some of them are small little fragments of parts of copies, to everything in between. The copies used range from the second century to the time of the printing press, when scribes traditionally stopped handcopying things. I believe the OT is based on about 2,000 hebrew texts and fragments, most of them being only about 1,000 years old (often called the Masoretic text). Only the recent discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has given us anything that dates back to the times of Christ. The only full Hebrew text we have from that time is the book of Isaiah. The Greek texts are grouped into "families." That is, they are texts that appear to have similar scribal errors at the same places. They were often discovered in roughly the same geographic area and time period. Such "families" are traditionally grouped into the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine texts. Others would add another small family of texts called the "Caesarian" texts, though scholars seem to be doubting this Caesarian classification of texts should exist. Essentially, each family is made up of dozens of manuscripts that were copied, sharing similar characterisitics. Generally, these centered around major regions where scribes were typically located and did their work. For example, a lot of Alexandrian texts are centered around the ancient city of Alexandria. From there texts were copied, and generally sent out to neighboring towns/cities. Of course, some of these towns also did scribal work of their own, but, generally based their copies off the main ones they were sent. So, if any scribe ever made an error in copying e.g. mispelling, writing a word twice, omission, etc., then when his copy was passed along to another place where a copy was made from the same document he made, future scribes would unknowingly copy his mistake, and so on. Thus, copies circulated in a general region often bore the same mistakes.Where Erasmus comes in is the fact the Erasmus had in general a few manuscripts at hand, all of Byzantine origin. None of these manuscripts were complete copies of the NT from Matthew-Revelation, but were indeed good chunks of the NT. Though as previously noted, he didn't have a full copy of the book of Revelation, the last page had fallen out. So to supply a full translation he simply took the Latin Vulgate, and did a backwards translation of the remaining verses. It should be noted Erasmus was doing nothing other than what modern textual critics do. They take the manuscripts they have available, and essentially compile them together, and try to make sense of any differences in copies, and determine which one is most likely the original. Erasmus would have done the exact same thing modern scholars do, comparing each verse in the differing manuscripts, and deciding how the Greek ought to be rendered. Erasmus would therefore have ommited verses/words he thought were error. Therefore, Erasmus Greek edition of the NT was actually a new Greek manuscript altogether, though representing the entire NT. Erasmus text would later be called "The Received Text." If you have a knowledge of Greek, you can examine to some degree, the different renderings of the Greek text. You can do this by buying an NA27 or UBS4, which contain what modern scholars generally regard as the most likely rendering of the Greek NT, but also contain extensive footnotes of alternative renderings of the text, and from manuscripts they come from. Also, we don't have any of the autographed writings of the apostles. All of them have vanished through the ware and tare of time. Even if we did have them, we honestly would have no way of knowing they were. They would simply be one of another 5000 manuscripts in existance, though, a bit older.
Logic,For Acts 6:8, differing manuscripts say different things. There are manuscripts that have the Greek word for grace as well as the Greek word for faith. Either way, I don't think it matters, as if you are full of one, you are obviously full of the other (as grace comes through faith). I checked a Textual Commentary I have by Bruce Metzger, and modern scholars seem agreed that "grace" is probably the best rendering, and is attested to by the oldest documents. In general, they think "full of faith" was a scribal copy error from 6:5, where the same term is used (in otherwords, the scribe's eye might have slipped with copying the document, and landed on "full of faith"). You might check out Metzger's commentary. It really requires some knowledge of Greek to fully use, but in general, you can see why the committe that compiled the UBS4 text chose what they did.
Logic, apparently Westcott & Hort & Douay Rheims have changed the faith to grace (charis -χαριτος).That would make a major difference in what caused the fruit of his "faith" ... a verb that he himself possessed and exercised ... rather than just something being poured out on him without his own cooperation, so to speak.To be "full of faith" is a Neat state to be in.I love that about Stephen, right up until his end, he sure was quite a guy and example for us.Neat. Thanks for bringing this up and showing it.(KJV) And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.(GNT-TR+) στεφανος4736 N-NSM δε1161 CONJ πληρης4134 A-NSM πιστεως4102 N-GSF και2532 CONJ δυναμεως1411 N-GSF εποιει4160 V-IAI-3S τερατα5059 N-APN και2532 CONJ σημεια4592 N-APN μεγαλα3173 A-APN εν1722 PREP τω3588 T-DSM λαω2992 N-DSM (KJV+) And1161 Stephen,4736 full4134 of faith4102 and2532 power,1411 did4160 great3173 wonders5059 and2532 miracles4592 among1722 the3588 people.2992 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(GNT-"WH"+) στεφανος4736 N-NSM δε1161 CONJ πληρης4134 A-NSM χαριτος5485 N-GSF και2532 CONJ δυναμεως1411 N-GSF εποιει4160 V-IAI-3S τερατα5059 N-APN και2532 CONJ σημεια4592 N-APN μεγαλα3173 A-APN εν1722 PREP τω3588 T-DSM λαω2992 N-DSM Douay Rheims Version (1899)- (DRB) And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. #1411 dunamis is not "fortitude" neither.That would take away from that his "faith" brought about God's pouring out "Miraculous Power".Like where Jesus didn't do many works in the place where there was faith lacking while here.And the woman's faith by touching the hem of his garment caused the virtue to leave him.Ya don't have to be of the hyper-faith camp to know that without faith it is impossible to please God and how Jesus said, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you'll say to this mountain .... etc.How could someone change the Greek and definitions ? That's what I'd like to know.:-xG1411δύναμιςdunamisdoo'-nam-isFrom G1410; force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.
Stever said:Quote:"That is what is missing from your anyalsis Philologos, as well as the analysis and work of Westcott and Hort, and all of the others since. If I look at the personal writings of Westcott and Hort (that I previously posted on sermonindex) themselves, they tell us that they were not interested in any of this (the actual writings of all of the early Church Fathers). They were interested in replacing the Received text with something else. They were successful in doing just that."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxPhilologos response:I am not a fan of Westcott and Hort. I think their work is deeply flawed, but I guarantee that they knew more about the 'EArly Church Fathers' than either of us.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: In their illustrous wisdom, and incorrect understanding or interest in Patrictics (the writings of the early Church Fathers), Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort were responsible for the removal of Mark 16:9-20. Specifically, my NIV, which has taken this drastic error forward, has this to say about the above verses "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses not not have Mark 16:9-20"Of course, this is not true and is in error. I offer the following, which is of course very long. This is a detailed study, with proof from the early Church writings, as well as other reference, that is necessary to understand Westcott & Horts drastic errors.Webpage for full analysis:http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.htmlWhy Mark 16:9-20 Belongs in the BibleA Case Study in Westcott-Hortian Silliness Specifically, Mark state: Mark 16:9-20 " 9. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEven before the revision committee of 1881 under Westcott, Hort, and their supporters introduced the first systematised Critical text, the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 has been called into question on textual grounds, most notable by critics such as Tischendorf and Tregelles. This portion of the text is believed by most modernistic textual scholars to be an addition tacked onto Mark sometime during the 2nd century, and that the "original" ending for Mark's Gospel has been lost, a claim which is logically impossible to support and which appears to have been pulled out of thin air.Despite the extremely poor support for the removal of these verses from Scripture, nearly all naturalistic textual critics support the abridgment, and nearly all of the new versions, if not outright removing the verses in question, will at least bracket them and include a note stating that these verses "don't really belong in the Bible". The case of Mark 16:9-20 allows us the opportunity to demonstrate first-hand the spuriousness of the Westcott-Hortian paradigm as it is applied to textual criticism. Based upon the evidence of a small, corrupted handful of Greek manuscripts and little else, modern textual critics remove the verse even despite the overwhelming amount of evidence in its favour. As can be easily seen, I believe, the Critical arguments against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, from the perspective of external evidences, rest upon the "oldest is best" canard. This is an argument which has no real merit, and which actually works against the position of the Critical Text supporters, as is argued here. The External Evidences Looking first to the Greek witness, we see that it stacks up heavily in favour of the authenticity of these verses. Bruce Terry1 presents the following breakdown: In Favour of Mark 16:9-20 •\tCodex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)•\tEphraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)•\tCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)•\tK (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)•\tW (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)•\tX (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)•\tDelta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)•\tTheta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)•\tPi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)•\tf1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)•\t28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)•\t33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)•\t565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)•\t700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)•\t892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)•\t1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)•\tThe Byzantine textual set•\tSome of the Greek lectionariesOpposed to Mark 16:9-20 •\tCodex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)•\tCodex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)•\t304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)2•\t2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)•\tMost of the Greek lectionaries3The article continues, and can be found at:http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.htmlxxxxxxxxxxGod bless,Stever
Brethren, I always used to say, "When all else fails, act like you've lost your mind." It sort of came 'natural' to me.But doing a Study on my reference just now, I found that some believe David was mimicking epilepsy, while others say he was mimicking a crazy or mad man.Which is it ? It appears the Commentators are split on this one.Here are just three.1Sa 21:12-13 - But David took these words to heart, and was in great fear of Achish, lest he should treat him as an enemy, and kill him. In order to escape this danger, “he disguised his understanding (i.e., pretended to be out of his mind) in their eyes (i.e., before the courtiers of Achish), behaved insanely under their hands (when they tried to hold him as a madman), scribbled upon the door-wings, and let his spittle run down into his beard.” The suffix to וישׁנּו is apparently superfluous, as the object, את־טעמו, follows immediately afterwards. But it may be accounted for from the circumstantiality of the conversation of every-day life, as in 2Sa_14:6, and (though these cases are not perfectly parallel) Exo_2:6; Pro_5:22; Eze_10:3 (cf. Gesenius' Gramm. §121, 6, Anm. 3). ויתו, from תּוה, to make signs, i.e., to scribble. The lxx and Vulgate render it ετυμπανίζειν, impingebat, he drummed, smote with his fists upon the wings of the door, which would make it appear as if they had read ויּתף (from תּפף), which seems more suitable to the condition of a madman whose saliva ran out of his mouth. K&D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1Sa 21:13 - And he changed his behaviour before them,.... Behaved like a fool, or a madman: or changed his "taste" (s); which some understand of his reason, acted as if he was deprived of it; and others of his speech, his words and the accent of them, drawled them out, as such persons do: and feigned himself mad in their hands; for in their hands he was, being taken by them, as the title of the fifty sixth psalm shows, Psa_56:1; and this stratagem he used to get himself out of their hands, acting the part of a madman, delirious, and out of his senses: and scrabbled on the doors of the gate; as if he was writing something there, and making marks upon them: and let his spittle fall down upon his beard; slavered, as idiots and madmen do; and however mean this may seem in David to act such a part, it cannot be condemned as wicked, since it was only a stratagem to deliver himself, out of an enemy's hand, and stratagems are always allowed to be used against an enemy; and such a method as this has been taken by men of the greatest sense and wit, as by Brutus (t) and Solon (u); and yet, according to the Vulgate Latin and Septuagint versions, this case of his was real and not feigned; that through the surprise of being known in the court of Achish, he was seized with an epilepsy; that his countenance was changed, and his mouth distorted, as persons in such fits are; that he fell among them as one convulsed, and fell at, and dashed against the doors of the gates, and foamed at the mouth, as such persons do; see Luk_9:39; and so in the following words the Greek version is, ye see the man is an epileptic; I do not want epileptics; but the thirty fourth and fifty sixth psalms, composed by him at this time, show that as he was of a sound mind, so in good health of body, and not subject to such fits as here represented, see Psa_34:1; which would have rendered him unfit for such composures. (s) טעמו "sensum suum", Montanus, Vatablus; "sermonem suum", Pagninus. (t) Liv. Hist. l. 1. c. 56. Aurel. Victor. de Vir. Illustr. c. 13. (u) Justin e Trogo, l. 2. c. 7. Gill~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1Sa 21:13 - And he changed his behavior - Some imagine David was so terrified at the danger to which he was now exposed, that he was thrown into a kind of frenzy, accompanied with epileptic fits. This opinion is countenanced by the Septuagint, who render the passage thus: Ιδου ιδετε ανδρα επιλητον; “Behold, ye see an epileptic man. Why have ye introduced him to me?” Μη ελαττουμαι επιληπτων εγω; “Have I any need of epileptics, that ye have brought him to have his fits before me, (επιληπτευεσθαι προς με?”) It is worthy of remark, that the spittle falling upon the beard, i.e., slavering or frothing at the mouth, is a genuine concomitant of an epileptic fit.If this translation be allowed, it will set the conduct of David in a clearer point of view than the present translation does. But others think the whole was a feigned conduct, and that he acted the part of a lunatic or madman in order to get out of the hands of Achish and his courtiers. Many vindicate this conduct of David; but if mocking be catching, according to the proverb, he who feigns himself to be mad may, through the just judgment of God, become so. I dare not be the apologist of insincerity or lying. Those who wish to look farther into this subject may consult Dr. Chandler, Mr. Saurin, and Ortlob, in the first volume of Dissertations, at the end of the Dutch edition of the Critici Sacri. ClarkeDo you think what David did here was a sin and should I not use this means of escape anymore ?Thanks. :-? Annie
Why Mark 16:9-20 Belongs in the BibleAs far as I can gather I am probably the only poster on SI to have actually SEEN the Codex Sinaiticus (CS)! It is currently kept in the British Library in London where I have a 'readers ticket'. The CS ending of Mark is pregnant! There is a gap in the copy which is just exactly the right size for the 'missing section'. This shows very plainly that the CS copyist actually knew of the fuller ending but was unsure as to what to do about it. Whether is was his own decision or that of a superior I don't know but the 'gap' was never filled. If you saw how beautifully the CS has been crafted (as a work of art, not a reliable text) you would see how glaringnly obvious this gap is. It is the equivalent of suddenly finding a 6" space in the middle of a Cambridge University Press edition of the KJV. It hits you in the face!This means that the time 300 years had passed from the original penning of Mark there was already a dispute about which were the original words. Many do not understand that the worst attempts to corrupt the original texts took place within the first few hundred years of the Christian church and did not begin with Westcott and Hort.I am very settled on the authenticity of the so-called 'longer ending' of Mark 16. I hold no brief to support Westcott and Hort; their textual criticism I believe was flawed. Erasmus' textual criticism (he WAS a textual critic) and that of Stephanus (another Textual Critic) is much more palatible to me. My persuasion is that the TR ,or better the Byzantine Textform, is a safer option.My objections to Stevers posts have been on the basis that the KJV represents some kind of 'new inspiration' in which we now have a perfect Bible version which cannot be bettered. This was not the position held by its translators nor of those who produced the later 'revisions' of the KJV (not the RV or ASV!) If you would like to see the 'variations' that have appeared in the KJV please take a look at Changes in the King James Version.
There is a gap in the copy which is just exactly the right size for the 'missing section'. This shows very plainly that the CS copyist actually knew of the fuller ending but was unsure as to what to do about it. Whether is was his own decision or that of a superior I don't know but the 'gap' was never filled.philologos, how do you know the CS scribe wasn't copying from a manuscript that also had a gap? How do we know there wasn't something lost very early and someone later "filled it in" with what would have been something similar to what John Mark originally wrote to make it more complete and remove doubt as to why there was a gap?(BTW, I am not doubting the validity of this section, just asking questions :-) )
philologos, how do you know the CS scribe wasn't copying from a manuscript that also had a gap? How do we know there wasn't something lost very early and someone later "filled it in" with what would have been something similar to what John Mark originally wrote to make it more complete and remove doubt as to why there was a gap?err?!? How do we know it wasn't abducted by aliens? :-D There is no way that we can be sure of what any of history's gaps may have had in them. I may be missing your point here, please pursue it!
This was not the position held by its translators nor of those who produced the later 'revisions' of the KJV (not the RV or ASV!) If you would like to see the 'variations' that have appeared in the KJV please take a look at Changes in the King James Version.As a KJV user myself, I am careful to point out to my KJV friends that the attitude of the 'KJV Only' folks is not new; but is akin to the attitude of those who felt the Vulgate was the supreme translation. For those who may not know, the scriptures were locked up in Latin for almost 1000 years and played a huge role in the world plunging into the Dark Ages. If the Lord should tarry another 300 years I am certain we will need a translation that rightly represents the Greek text in the language of the people. Translating from the KJV then would be no better than Wycliff's translation of the Latin Vulgate. Moreover, we should consider the dangers all around of NOT having an accurate Bible in the language of the people.
Sorry Ron, maybe I wasn't so clear in what I was persenting. It appeared to me as if you were saying the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus was the one who "created" the gap. I was just asking what evidence there was that vv.9-20 as we have them originally existed and the CS left them out. If this is NOT what you were saying, then everyone can disregard the rest of my message :-) Follow me on a (hypothetical) journey through history:50AD: John Mark composes his account of the life of Christ150AD: Mark's account has been passed around for a hundred years over hundreds of miles, and the last "page" or section of scroll has disappeared through transmission, or went through some sort of trauma and been destroyed. 300AD: 150 years of copying of Mark have taken place. Those scribes in Alexandria have copied EXACTLY what they had been given, holes and all.400AD: Scribes in Byzantium sometime in the last 250 years realized there could be a huge problem if Mark is incomplete, so they decide to look through history and find a plausable ending to Mark that is completely harmonious with not only Mark's writing but also the rest of scripture. Today: All Byzantine texts we have include the "added" verses. All Alexandrian texts we have are true to what they received, but obviously lacking a major section of the original.________________________________________________Basically what I am saying is, does evidence point to the fact that the Byzantine vv.9-20 are original and Alexandrian are missing? Or does evidence point to the fact that NEITHER is correct in relation to the original, and it is the disposition of the reader whether to accept a faulty incomplete work or a faulty added but harmonious work?hope this helps in clarifying what I was getting at. If not, then, well, pphhhh :-)
50AD: John Mark composes his account of the life of Christ150AD: Mark's account has been passed around for a hundred years over hundreds of miles, and the last "page" or section of scroll has disappeared through transmission, or went through some sort of trauma and been destroyed. I am not saying that the copyist who produced the Sinai Codex was the instigator of the gap. As you say he may well have been copying from a text that already had a gap. The point I was making is that his gap shows, at least, some uncertainty in his own mind as to what he ought to do. These manuscripts were created by professional copyists and are works of art in their own right. It seems most likely to me that the copyist just did not know what he ought to do at this point. I suggests that the gap means he knew of copies of Mark which had the final verses, and/or he knew of copies of Mark which did not have the final verses and/or he knew of copies of Mark which had a 'gap'. The point I was making is that in some sense this copyist was a 'textual critic' trying to decide what the origina 'Mark's Gospel' had contained. BTW I don't know whether this has come through in these posts but the these 'codices' (book shaped manuscripts) are all Uncials ie they are in in 'upper case' letters with no gaps between the words and with words not 'word wrapped' so that the ending to a word may well be on the next line. Added to this the copyists introduced 'short hand' symbols for several words eg the Greek letter 'theta' (a circle with a horizontal line through it) would sometimes be used for 'God'. The original manuscripts were what is known as 'cursives' which means they used the curving lower case alphabet. So by the 3rd century 'modern' aethestics had altered the appearance of the text from cursives to uncials.Here is an image of John's Gospel in the Sinai Codex.On the other hand the original document written by Mark would have been 'lower case' cursive as in this image of John's Gospel - in cursive (lower case) lettersThe theories of 'textual transmission' are all just that 'theories'. It is impossible to 'prove' any one them. If proofs were possible we wouldn't be having this conversation. So we have the familiar 'crime movie' scene of the detectives trying to produce a scenario for the facts as we find them. The facts being that the Sinaiticus has a gap where other mss (plural) have the last few verses of Mark. The Sinai Codex is reckoned to be 3rd Century AD (ie 200-300 AD) I quoted your two paragraphs above as what we really need to do is try to provide a scenario for the 50-150 AD before we go further.It is most likely that Mark's gospel was copied many times. Mark almost certainly wrote it with this in mind. ie he did not intend this account to be for a private collection somewhere. How many copies were made? If the circumstancial evidence that links Peter with Mark's gospel is accepted (not many evangelicals would dispute that I think) almost every church would want a copy. No doubt a little 'cottage industry' would have sprung up with people copying copies of copies in the early days.What do we know about these early days? We know that there was an amazing amount of travel and contact between the groups. If Mark's gospel were read in a gathering attended by visitors from another gathering there would be an immediate check on the authenticity. Someone would say 'hey, it doesn't say that in our churhch's copy of Mark's record.' This is an extension of the reasoning which authenticates the gospel record generally. In the first years of the circulation of Mark's gospel there were surviving eyewitnesses. The fact that Mark's gospel was accepted by the Christians is evidence that those eye-witnesses were happy with its contents.I don't think it is at all likely that the omission of such a prominant section would be a 'mistake' made by a copyist and then 'accidentally passed on'. I think this is a 'choice' and consequently,as you say, the latter verses of Mark are are 'forged' by someone with an agenda, or omitted by someone with an agenda.Some writers who want to detract from the Sinai and Vatican Codices point out that they both seem to have their origin in the area of Alexandria. Alexandria was an area known to have its fair share of doctrinal dissidents and the statement it often made that these were the descendents of copies made by Origen with his defective trinitarian theology. This is conjecture. It is possible but there is no proof of the assertion. We just don't know.The family of manuscripts which favour the longer ending of Mark are vastly in the majority and consequently this family of texts is sometimes referred to as the "Majority Texts". One of our posters here tells us that 'majorities are always wrong' but I don't think he would want to include manuscripts in that judgement. If you want to pursue this in greater detail I really would recommend Robinson and Pierpoint.
No doubt a little 'cottage industry' would have sprung up with people copying copies of copies in the early days.We had an interesting conversation about something like this today in seminary. Our prof was talking about the average cost of making a manuscript about the length of Romans. He said it would've taken about 11 hours to copy by hand (you had to get fresh ink with every letter), and would've cost about $2500 in today's currency. So, being that the churches indeed had such "cottages" for copying, just think how much they had invest and give to simply making copies of manuscripts, and circulating letters. To think they valued the writings of the apostles so much that the church would so deeply invest in the publication of their letters, though it was so costly. Not to mention the hungry, naked, and poor they were taking care of.
Ron, thanks for clarifying. Good to see we're back on the same page. Keep it comin' brother!blessings
This thread was a run away, but I'm still wondering: Why would anybody still use the KJV? :-D Or is your series done, philo?
PreachParsly wrote:This thread was a run away, but I'm still wondering: Why would anybody still use the KJV? :-D Or is your series done, philo?I must agree with the person above me...I'm not so much interested in discussing the philosphy of translation at this moment... I am more interested in starting at the right place!Philologos, it seems to make the most sense to me that older=better. So why would anyone want to use the byzantine texts when you can use the older alexandrian texts?What are the arguments?... for both sides?And if there is a good case to be made that byzantine, though newer, are better-- then it makes sense that we ought to make a new translation better than KJV.And what do you think of the NASB? This is my personal favorite.Lastly, I would like to make a call to all who participated in this thread to go back to page one and read A.W. Tozer's quote again. Like most of Tozer's words, they are better the second time through.Adam
And one more thing, philologos, what do you think of the theory that goes something along the lines of, "The new translations unnecesarily remove and/or change a lot of words (a certain percentage), in order to keep from violating copyright laws."This way they can make $$$I don't buy it. What's your take?
Hi PreachParsly...This thread was a run away, but I'm still wondering: Why would anybody still use the KJV?I suppose that my answer to the question is as follows: Even though the language is dated and the translation is not competely perfect, the KJV is very sound and probably the best translation taken from the Textus Receptus. :-)
Hey, and don't forget that we ain't got time for them to Number all these other new versions to the Strongs, and Englishman Concordance and other concordances, and Zodhiates and some Lexicons, ETC. ETC. ... ALL those word study books that ARE numbered to the Strongs. And aren't those "thees and thous" cute ? :-D
Ron: Quote:Why would anybody still use the KJV?The only answer that I can come up with is:Because the KJV has withstood the test of time..400 plus years as the bible of choice has to count for something. Lets see where all the other versions are in 300 years. Blessings Greg
Most of the new translations change the Faith of Christ to the faith in Christ. I know this does not seem like a big deal. When you take the Faith of Christ given to us at our birthing in Christ by the Incorruptable Seed of the Father, Jesus Christ Himself being born again in the believer, with His Faith in us, and by that Faith being able to understand the things of the Kingdom of God and change that faith to our faith in Christ it takes away from the new Creature in Christ that we are and puts the monkey on our back to build up our faith in Christ. The King James keeps the Oneness we have in Christ, it is His Spirit in us, and by Him being Baptized into the Holy Spirit, it is His Faith building up our most Holy Faith, Holy Faith cannot come from us, but only by the Holiness of the Faith of Christ that is in us.It is "of" to "in", very subtle but very big when it comes to our Faith in Christ that is of Christ.Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.Just check out these two. These are just two that have been changed and there are many more.In Christ: Phillip
I actually have some audios on my website concerning which translations are best and what the difference is. I also have some audios of a debate between KJV-Only People and the Editors of other Translations. To check them out, go here:PinPoint EvangelismGod Bless
THE QUESTION IS: "Why would anybody still use the KJV?"Stever posts:This is only one example of why it is the only one to use:Isaiah 7:14"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (KJV)"A young woman is going to have a baby." (Jerusalem Version)"A young woman who is pregnant will have a son." (Good News)"Behold a young woman shall conceive ..." (RSV)Comment: There is nothing new about a young woman having a baby, yet this is supposed to be a sign whereby God is promising deliverance in an almost impossible situation!The Hebrew word "almah" (hmlu) occurs only seven times in the O.T. It should be rendered "virgin" here for although "almah" could mean "young woman", every time it is used in the Old Testament the context demands that it means "virgin". The other six times it is translated "virgin" in most of the various versions. One wonders why the sudden departure in the verse before us. THE MIRACLE WAS GOING TO BE THAT A VIRGIN WAS GOING TO CONCEIVE!Furthermore, the New Testament confirms the fact in Mat.1:23 that Mary was a virgin: "Behold, a virgin (Greek = "parthenos" = parqeno") shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."All languages contain both "weak" and "strong" words. By "weak" is meant a word that has many shades of meaning or even widely different meanings, i.e., the word "cool" in today's English. Such words can defy etymological studies. "Strong" words, on the other hand, are words which have a very limited narrow meaning – often only one possible sense. We begin to see the manifold wisdom of God in choosing to reveal His Word to man in two tongues. Weak words in one which could lead to confusion could be covered by strong words in the other by cross references and quotations. Such is the case before us. The "weak" Hebrew word "almah" (though we have already shown that by its Biblical usage it is not so weak) is covered in the N.T. by the "strong" Greek word "parthenos" which can only be translated one way – "virgin".Moreover, context is the decisive factor for determining the final connotation of any word or phrase, not the dictionary definition or etymology. Etymology, though often helpful, is not an exact science. It should be used for confirmation, not as the deciding factor.The translators of the modern versions are well aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos" hence the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into ANY OTHER WORD REPRESENTS DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL ALTERATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. In denying the virgin birth of Christ, they are saying:1)Jesus was a bastard as Mary was unmarried when she conceived;2)Mary was a fornicator;3)God has lied to us in Mat. 1:22-23;4)Christ was not God, not deity (having a physical father, He was only human); and5)Christ was a sinner as he would then be a descendant of Adam and inherit Adam's nature as in Rom. 5:12.WHICH ONE OF THE THREE VERSIONS LISTED ABOVE IS TRUSTWORTHY. IT IS NOT ANY OF THE NEWER TRANSLATIONS LISTED ABOVE. ONLY THE KING JAMES VERSION CAN BE TRUSTED.God bless,SteverP.S. Here is one more reason:Matthew 1:25"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (KJV)"But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." (NIV, NAS)Comment: "A" son and her "firstborn" do not necessarily mean the same. Furthermore, "firstborn" reveals that Mary had other children, correcting the Roman Catholic error that Mary was a perpetual virgin. (which demands that Joseph be a perpetual virgin also, unless he was an adulterer!? – cp. Mk.6:2-4; Joh.7:2-6, cp. 2:12; Psa.69:8; Luk.21:16)Convinced? This is only the beginning of the deceptions found in the newer versions.
14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.-- NASBHmmm...You quote the liberal translations, and then declare that all new translations are deceptive and the KJV is the one true Word of God.What you are doing is foolish.Adam
Combat_Chuck wrote: .......................Hmmm...You quote the liberal translations, and then declare that all new translations are deceptive and the KJV is the one true Word of God.What you are doing is foolish.AdamXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXStever's rsponse to Adam:Some other examples that would hopefully open the eyes, and soften the hearts, and open the ears for those that pray to God for understanding, before reading are:Mark 1:2-3As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (KJV)As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (NAS; NIV is similar.)Verse 3 is from Isaiah 40:3, but Verse 2 is not found in the Book of Isaiah. It is from Mal.3:1 – "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me ...". Thus the King James is correct in saying "prophets". Why is this distinction so important? Because Malachi gives the Hebrew rendition which is the precise original quote. If we know to look for the Mark text in more than one O.T. prophet, the reader may learn the great truth that lies couched in these verses.When we read the last part of Malachi 3:1 and compare this to verse 6, we find that the "my" and "me" of verse one is Jehovah (LORD in all caps). When the New Testament quotes the Old, the word for Jehovah is not in all capital letters but in the Old Testament the word "LORD" is the English rendering of the Hebrew YHWH (Yod-He-Vav-He, hwhy)which we call "Jehovah".Jehovah is speaking, hence Malachi is saying that the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah Himself, is coming – in the flesh! There is only one God and His principal name is "Jehovah". He manifested Himself in three persons, one in the flesh in order to die for man's sins. As Mark 1:1-3 applies to Jesus, we see that this becomes a declaration as to the person of Jesus – that He is Jehovah come to earth. This identification cannot be pieced together from Isaiah alone. ORIGEN did not believe that Jesus was Jehovah come in the flesh SO HE ALTERED THE VERSE TO FIT HIS GNOSTIC BELIEFS, OBLITERATING THE CONNECTION TO MALACHI. MODERN TRANSLATORS ARE USING ORIGEN'S PRIVATE INTERPRETATION (& CORRUPT) FROM WHICH TO TRANSLATE.THE KING JAMES makes it clear that Jehovah was coming in the flesh whereas the NAS and NIV do not. This is a major doctrinal point for the person and deity of Christ Jesus are at issue.IS IT ANY WONDER THAT TODAY, IN 2006 MANY CHRISTIANS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD?Mark 9:43-44"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (KJV)RSV and NIV both omit verse 44. By so doing, man is not warned; he does not have to be concerned about ETERNAL FIRE.To learn what Jesus says about hell, read Chapter 9 beginning with verse 42. Jesus taught more about hell and its realities in the Gospels than is found in the rest of the Bible put together. Jesus repeats verse 44 again in verse 46. A church or person not believing in hell fire prefers the deletion of verse 44, but the original perverter of the Mark Scripture overlooked that it was a quote from Isaiah 66:24 and omitted to alter the teaching there. Man may try to eliminate hell in the New Testament, but the truth of the terrible consequence of man's sin if left unatoned by not receiving Jesus as one's personal Savior is preserved for us in the Old Testament. It does not alter the truth or fact of hell if one says he does not believe in hell. One may declare that he does not believe in gravity, but if he walks off a twenty story building he will find that mind over matter does not work. Cults teach "mind over matter", as do some Christian circles regarding the subject of faith, but it is not a Scriptural concept – not when context is considered. The fact of hell as a literal place is Scriptural (Luk.16:19-31 etc.).IS IT ANY WONDER, IN THE YEAR 2006 THAT MANY CHRISTIANS, THAT HAVE RELIED ON THE NEWER VERSIONS FOR THEIR STUDY OF DOCTRINE AND TRUTH, ARE FUZZY ABOUT HELL, AS WELL AS UNDERSTANDING THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD?Mark 10:21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. (KJ)Jesus looked at him and loved him. "one thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (NIV; NAS is similar.)The words "take up the cross" have been left out. That doctrine admittedly makes Christianity sound more appealing, but Jesus says there is a cross that comes with the new birth. The cross is a place of death. It is where man's will "crosses" God's will in opposition, rather than agreeing and lining up with the will of the Lord. It is the place where "self" dies to its own will, desires, goals, ambitions etc., and bows its head in humble submission to its Lord and says "not my will Lord but thine".Mark 16:9-20"9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (KJV)Most versions have a footnote to the effect that "these verses are not in the oldest, best, most reliable Greek manuscripts." In laymen's terms this means that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the two 4th century Greek manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph which were derived from Origen's (185-254) edited New Testament (a 12th century minuscule also omits the verses). Satan has always wanted to strip the church of its power, authority, and commission. These verses are the Great Commission spoken by Jesus as recorded by Mark. It is an apostolic commission delegating great power to the body of Christ that it may continue the ministry of the Lord Jesus.Of the approximately 3,119 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. extant today, none is complete. The segment of text bearing Mark 16 has been lost from many, but over 1,800 contain the section and verses 9-20 are present in all but the 3 cited above. The footnote is thus unveiled and laid bare as dishonest and deliberately misleading in intimating that these verses are not the Word of God.The external evidence is massive. Not only is the Greek manuscript attestation ratio over 600 to 1 in support of the verses (99.99%) – around 8,000 Latin mss, about 1,000 Syriac versions as well as all of the over 2,000 known Greek Lectionaries contain the verses. They were cited by Church "Fathers" who lived 150 years or more before B or Aleph were written i.e.: Papias (c.100), Justin Martyr (c.150), Tatian (c.175), Irenaeus (c.180), and Hippolytus (c.200).Further, the Vatican MSS has a blank space exactly the size required to include the 12 verses at the end of the 16th chapter (PHILOLOGOS HAS ACTUALLY SEEN THIS). The scribe who prepared B obviously knew of the existence of the verses and their precise content. Indeed, as Tischendorf observed, Sinaiticus exhibits a different handwriting and ink on this page, and there is a change in spacing and size of the individual letters in an attempt to fill up the void left by the removal of the verses. These circumstances testify that the sheet is a forgery.Do we really believe that God would have the greatest story ever told end at verse 8: "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Would God allow the good news of the Gospel to end with his disciples cringing in fear? Would Mark conclude his Gospel without any reference to the appearance of the risen Christ to His disciples? I think not! THE KING JAMES CAN BE TRUSTED. THE NEWER VERSIONS CANNOT.I KNOW, BECAUSE I STARTED USING THE NIV IN THE 1970'S. IT WASN'T UNTIL JUNE OF 1999 THAT I RETURNED TO THE KING JAMES VERSION.God bless,Stever
Worshiping Christ, as presented in the King James, the NIV and the New American Standard:Matthew 4:10 (9:18; 20:20; Mk.5:6; Lk.24:52)Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJV)In the above verse, Jesus clearly endorsed Deuteronomy 6:13 and 10:20, declaring that all worship and service should be directed toward God and Him alone – yet Jesus Himself received and accepted worship on many occasions. In marked contrast, Peter (Act.10:25,26) and an angel (Rev.22:8) refused to accept worship, insisting that only God should be worshipped. Thus by Jesus' act of accepting worship, He was proclaiming that He was and is God! Moreover, that He was indeed Jehovah come in the flesh. Yet many of the newer versions render the Greek verb "proskuneo" (proskuneo) as "bowed down", "paid homage", "knelt", "made obesience" etc. (See below.)MAT 9:18 (KJV) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.MAT 9:18 (NAS) While he was saying these things to them, behold, there came a synagogue official, and bowed down before him saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live." (knelt, NIV)MAT 20:20 (KJV) Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.MAT 20:20 (NAS) "Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Him with her sons, bowing down, and making a request of Him." (kneeling down, NIV)MAR 5:6 (KJV) But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, ...MAR 5:6 (NAS) And seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him. (fell on his knees, NIV)LUK 24:52 (KJV) And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:LUK 24:52 (NAS) "And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy." (worship omitted)The preceding changes should alarm the Bible believer who is constantly being told that the NAS and the NIV are the best translations available, often by well meaning conservative men of God. Yet in these verses, the NAS and NIV read almost exactly as the New World Translation published by the Jehovah's Witness cult (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society).Again, this represents a direct attack on the deity of Christ Jesus and it is not warranted in the Greek language. "Proskuneo" (proskuneo) appears 59 times in the N.T. In all of the other places, it has historically been rendered as "worship", "worshipped", or "worshipping" without challenge. It is by far the most prominent Greek word for worship in the Scriptures (the second largest occurring only 3 times). It is used to describe that which the people offer to: Satan (Rev.13:4), the Beast (Rev.13:15; 14:11; 16:2), demons (Rev.9:20), idols (Act.7:43), and God throughout the N.T. In these verses, the translators of the NAS, NIV etc., had no difficulty in translating "proskuneo" as "worship". Why do they suddenly find themselves compelled to offer a different wording when the same word is used in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ?Moreover, the Hebrew equivalent of "proskuneo" is "shachah" (Hebrew = Shiyn-Cheyth-He = hjv). Shachah occurs 174 times in the Old Testament, and it too is normally translated by some form of the word "worship" – being so rendered 99 times. Furthermore, shachah is the same word that is used with reference to the worship of God, idols, images, demons, etc. throughout the entire Old Testament.Can you not see the danger? Does your heart already tell you – does the Holy Spirit bear witness to the true reading of the verses already cited? And yet there is much more.God bless,Stever
Stever...The translators of the modern versions are well aware of the incontrovertible decisive nature of "parthenos" hence the translation of Isaiah 7:14 into ANY OTHER WORD REPRESENTS DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL ALTERATION OF THE WORD OF GOD. In denying the virgin birth of Christ, they are saying:1)Jesus was a bastard as Mary was unmarried when she conceived;2)Mary was a fornicator;3)God has lied to us in Mat. 1:22-23;4)Christ was not God, not deity (having a physical father, He was only human); and5)Christ was a sinner as he would then be a descendant of Adam and inherit Adam's nature as in Rom. 5:12.Yet again, you have placed words into the mouths of Bible scholars and translators. Stever, the translators of academic versions like the NIV did not alter anything. They attempted to produce a translation that is faithful to the sources that were used. Your allegations of a "pseudo-conspiracy" by the translators of all versions other than the KJV borders on paranoia, a simple lack of knowledge, or possibly, slander. You do not know the translators -- and cannot thus quote them as such. Perhaps you should be a little more careful to include the words, “I think…” or "I believe…” before you post such slanderous and malicious accusations as fact. As we have pointed out before, you should be careful less you find yourself bearing false witness against these translators -- or worse -- against the Word of God. :-(
The longer I spend on this website, the clearer it becomes that there are some labouring here who would spread false witness. Intentionally or not, only they know.Blessings Greg
Stever posts:Further comparisons between the King James and the newer versions. You decide if there is a concerted effort to minimize the deity and power of Jesus Christ in the newer versions. It is your decision.Matthew 6:13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (KJV)Comment: This is the end of the "model" prayer given by Jesus. Nearly all the modern translations either omit or footnote the underlined portion above. The Roman Catholic Church as well as post-millennialist's want this ending deleted because they teach that there will not be a thousand year kingdom with Jesus enthroned on the earth. The church, according to the post-millennial precepts, will evangelize the world and thus it will bring in the kingdom.The Roman Cathoic position is that as the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead, this is the Kingdom here and now. Rome teaches that through the Church's efforts all will be converted, that Satan was bound when Jesus rose from the dead and all Scripture that clearly teaches otherwise is spiritualized away by labeling it as allegory.It also maintains that the Church has replaced Israel in all the prophetic verses – that God has forever abandoned the nation Israel, never to use it again.Of course, Romans 9-11 and a multitude of other Scripture proclaim that God will again use national Israel to His Glory. Moreover, the Scripture declares that King Jesus is going to physically (Rev.19) return, bring in the kingdom and give it to the saints (Luk.12:32)! God's ultimate plan is that all saved Jews and Gentiles for all time will be together as one flock, having one Shepherd, and in one fold (Jn.10:16)This conclusion of the Lord's or "model" Prayer is found in almost all the Greek New Testament manuscripts yet it is universally rejected by modern critics. Perhaps it is time that the Church rejected the modern critics.God bless,Stever
Combat_Chuck wrote:
I really wish this thread was not hijacked. But philologos... I anxiously am awaiting a reply. Thanks so much if you take the time to reply to my questions I quoted above--God bless you!AdamPreachParsly wrote:This thread was a run away, but I'm still wondering: Why would anybody still use the KJV? :-D Or is your series done, philo?I must agree with the person above me...I'm not so much interested in discussing the philosphy of translation at this moment... I am more interested in starting at the right place!Philologos, it seems to make the most sense to me that older=better. So why would anyone want to use the byzantine texts when you can use the older alexandrian texts?What are the arguments?... for both sides?And if there is a good case to be made that byzantine, though newer, are better-- then it makes sense that we ought to make a new translation better than KJV.And what do you think of the NASB? This is my personal favorite.Lastly, I would like to make a call to all who participated in this thread to go back to page one and read A.W. Tozer's quote again. Like most of Tozer's words, they are better the second time through.Adam
Now, to be sure, conspiratorialists can find heretics who use these modern translations. That is beside the point, however. Why? Because an equal if not greater number of heretics can be found who embrace the KJV. (In the 1800s, in fact, the KJV became the ping-pong ball in English debates over the deity of Christ. Those who argued for the deity of Christ appealed to the Greek text, since the KJV translators had not accurately translated some of the passages.) This is similar to what Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16: “Some things in [Paul’s] letters are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.” The real issue is whether thoroughly orthodox folks can be found standing behind these modern translations. Yes, they can, and predominantly so. The faith delivered once for all to the saints is not in danger from these new translations. The real danger is in deflecting Christians from our mission in life, to share the good news of Jesus Christ with a dying world, compassionately, and clearly.So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy. 1 Erasmus’ text went through five editions. Others took up where he left off, but essentially kept the text virtually the same. One of the editions of Theodore Beza, done in the late 1500s, constituted the text behind the King James NT. By 1550 the third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text included in the margin textual variants from several witnesses, but the text was still largely that of Erasmus. By 1633 this text had gone through some more minor changes, but was stable enough that the edition published by the Elzevirs was called in the preface the “the text now received by all,” or the Textus Receptus. Interestingly, this was more publishers’ hype than consensus, for many if not most NT scholars had long noted the inherent weaknesses in this text. The text published was thus, even in the seventeenth century, more a text of convenience than one of conviction.2 One of the arguments sometimes heard is that the nonbeliever cannot understand the gospel. 1 Cor 2:12-14 is cited as proof of this statement. The KJV is thus held up as the best Bible because nonbelievers cannot easily understand it! This argument refutes itself, however. First, this is a perversion of 1 Cor 2:12-14; that text essentially says that the nonbeliever does not understand because he does not welcome the gospel. His problem is one of volition more than cognition. Second, if this argument were true, then we might expect a new believer suddenly able to comprehend Elizabethan English. But that is not the case: new believers have just as difficult a time understanding the KJV as nonbelievers. Third, why is it that unbelieving Shakespearean scholars have little difficulty understanding the words of the KJV? Fourth, by way of analogy: the NT was written in Koine Greek or “common” Greek. It was the language of the day--easily understood from Athens to Rome, from Carthage to Jerusalem. Should not our modern translations also be easily understood? To be sure, some of the concepts are not easily grasped, even for mature believers (Peter said as much about Paul’s writings). But why make the language a stumbling block? The cross alone should be the stumbling block. It is sufficient.By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.-------------------------------------------------Our real problem is if we know the difference in the different translations and put them together and everybody knows the differences and proclaims Jesus Christ the Son of God still, then it is not the translations that are the evidences for the right translation but the people of God, son's and therefore Heirs and fellow life of Christ believers that are protecting the Word by the Spirit of God. Where is the Problem, its letting all that would cause descention in the Body of Christ because of translations become the division among us.Let us embrace the Christ that is in us and listen to the Holy Spirit teach us about Him. WE must learn Christ and anytime Christ is watered down or taken away from, be it translations of the Bible or books that man has written about everything from faith to human intellect and Grace intermingled with Law, we must stop it and all be of one Mind. God knows what He is doing. Let us just be His Instruments to reveal the mystery of Christ to the World and perfect revelation in His Word. Colossians 1:27-29 to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto I labor also, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.In Christ: Phillip
So, is there a conspiracy today? My answer may surprise the reader: yes, I believe there is. But the conspiracy has not produced these modern translations. Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues, to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that, as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand.2 It takes little thought to see who is behind such a conspiracy. Oh almost..."Rather, I believe that there is a conspiracy to cause division among believers, to deflect our focus from the gospel to petty issues"That is so exacting as to be applicable regardless of translation, it's the heart translation that is often wanting..."to elevate an anti-intellectual spirit that does not honor the mind which God has created, and to uphold as the only Holy Bible a translation that..""only" the trouble, preferred perhaps but......"as lucid as it was in its day, four hundred years later makes the gospel seem antiquated and difficult to understand"That may only be a matter of preference or it may be due to some presumptions. The gospel is in one sense 'antiquated' in that it changes not, regardless of the time frame it was copied into our formal or informal English. The difficulty as was pointed out somewhat is on the user end of matters. There is a great deal of thought and discussion on this as an issue throughout this site and often the most striking observance is in the effect of over emphasis and cries of conspiracy. The suspicions expressed and heart condition can make one wonder if the reader is studying a text book or ...Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Part of the problem is a depreciation for the love of and expressive qualities of words. A great perspective was given elsewhere here for instance on the meanings behind "Thou" and "Thee" and how the definitions translate differently into our more modern usage of "you", "they" and so forth. Will see if I can dig it up and edit it into this.First, this is a perversion of 1 Cor 2:12-14; that text essentially says that the nonbeliever does not understand because he does not welcome the gospel. His problem is one of volition more than cognition.Precisely, maybe I am not really in any disagreement with this at all. The 'conspiracy', like so many, has it's root's of suspicion buried within the heart.*Edit; Here is a link to a thread; Why the "Thee's" and "Thou's"?in refrence, which contains the link to an excellent article; Teach Thyself Olde English
Adam,I would like to reply to your question.The theory behind the Byzantine texts being better, though they are not as old as the Alexandrian is this:You are a scribe who is using and copying manuscripts at the same time. If you get ahold of a manuscript that has errors while you are so carefully copying the truth, what do you do with them? You make sure that erroneous copies do not get into circulation by burning any erroneous text someone gives you. If you don't, you are wasting your time making sure that the truth is preserved, word for word. So just as it is your responsiblity to copy accurately, it is your responsibility to safeguard the accurate copy.Meanwhile, you are opening and closing these scrolls to study the Word for yourself, or the people that get their hands on your work are doing this. Studying, rolling and unrolling. After a while of hands-on use, you can imagine that a text that has been in use is not going to last as long because it will be worn out. So a scribe will make copies of the text you have painstakingly copied, because the text he gets his hands on will be wearing out. So a good copy will most likely be worn out.People would pay big, big money even for a page of the Bible. You can bet they are going to use it and wear it out. It is not going to collect dust (where your treasure is, there your heart will be, also). Following this logic, the best texts are going to be in circulation, and be the quickest texts to be worn out. So the fact alone that a text is just older doesn't qualify it as better. An older text may be better than a newer, but older doesn't automatically qualify it as such. So as a copyist, a manuscript that is falling apart is just going to add confusion. So the true copy is disposed of once it is weathered beyond recognition. While the copies of this 'just disposed of' copy will not be as old, they are still true copies.So while one can't say automatically that the Codex Sinaiticus is false because it was written in the 300's, neither can we say it is better because it was written in the 300's. There is just as strong an argument against an older manuscript when time is brought in as evidence. The question can just as easily be, 'Why wasn't the text being used and copied (worn out through copying and hours of study).' The same goes for the Codex Vaticanus. Older doesn't qualify automatically as better. No, I am not a Alexandrian manuscript fan, but in all fairness and honesty, someone of either persuasion, Byzantine or Alexandrian, cannot use age as the blanket of superiority. Hope this helps.
Stever posts:I have been providing examples of the difference between the two texts (The Textus Receptus versus the Sinaiticus Aleph & Vaticanus B). I truly hope that all those with an open mind can see that there is quite a difference, especially in regards to the doctrine that makes the difference between the Catholic Church and the Christian Church. The Doctrine of the Catholic Church is error, while the Doctrine of the Christian Church used to be truth. If there is no dirrerence between the two doctrines, then what on earth was the reformation all about? Was it just a waste of time, and really a non-event, or was it the most important event in history, other than the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?I posted this once before. I have to assume that many on this thread did not read it. It goes into detail about what took place when Erasmus did his work, and is well worth your time. It sheds light on the two distinct texts that have created the Bible. #1)The Textus Receptus for the Christian Bible; #2)the Sinaiticus Aleph & Vaticanus B (Vaticanus as in "Vatican")that created the Catholic Bible, and are the basis for all of the newer Christian (not Catholic) Bible Versions as well:Ancient Greek ManuscriptsIt is true that several thousand mss have been discovered since 1611. This is the major factor that has been used to justify to the church at large the need for a major revision of the King James. It seems logical that if a vast amount of data not available to the King James translators has been brought to life – these new materials must be considered. This especially seems reasonable as some of these mss were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas Erasmus' five mss were from the 10th to 15th centuries.Admittedly this rhetoric seems very compelling. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Greek text of those five mss which Erasmus used! Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts read such and such" as opposed to the King James. But is it not devastating to realize that what has been kept from the church at large is the fact that the vast majority (c.90-95%) of these more recent finds read the same as the Traditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and the King James translation?The Alexandrian manuscript ("A") arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the King James translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use. Being untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which most of the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph were well known not only to translators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts – AND THEY REJECTED THEM! They also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the Received Text AND THEY DENOUNCED THEM ALL. How can this be so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are essentially the same as The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the same thing as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at their disposal. As to the often heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. HENCE "OLDEST" IS NOT NECESSARILY THE BEST. Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired. In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the Textus Receptus. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct. THUS ERASMUS KNEW ABOUT VATICANUS NEARLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE KING JAMES BIBLE EVER SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY!xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThis is the real deal, brothers and sisters in the Lord. There is a substantial difference between the two texts. The difference between Catholic Christianity from Rome, with all of its false doctrine, and the need for a Priest to "confess our sins to", as well as worshiping Mary as a "co-redemptrix" with Christ and praying to her, rather than Jesus, the artifical creation of "Purgatory", as well as the biggest insult to Jesus Christ-the creation of a Pope. A Pope that has given himself the power to change the doctrine of the Bible for whatever he feels to be doctrine ***.Also,lest we foget, the creation of a "Priesthood" (my bible tells me that all believers are Priests and have access to the very throne room of heaven) that is supposedly "celibate", only to find out that, in America for sure, many are actually homosexuals that prey on the young. When these deeds have been exposed, the guilty party is protected by Rome. This is all error, every bit of it, and is only found in the Catholic Church because the text that they relied on to create their Bible is the same text that Erasmus (as well as Stephanus and others) rejected as spurious, and full of error.Now, fast forward to today. With all of the newer versions that Christians are relying on for Doctrine, we have so much doctrinal error that many, many Christians today have no understanding that Jesus Christ is GOD. We have major denominations that ordain openly gay Pastors and Bishops. We have Christians who find no problem in committing adultery and fornication, on a "serial" basis, and still continue going to Church every Sunday and attending Bible study during the week, and truly think they are on their way to heaven. Fornication, adultery, bestiality, sodomy, and homosexualty have been replaced with watered down words that have no meaning in the newer versions--words like "sexual sin". What on earth doest that mean, anyway? Now, pick up the King James, and it is spelled out in detail for child or adult to see--FORNICATION (SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE) ADULTERY (SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE), EFFEMENIATE (HOMOSEXUALTIY), SODOMY (MALE & FEMALE HOMOSEXUALTIY), BESTIALITY (SEX WITH AN ANIMAL), TO NAME JUST A FEW.This debate has everything to do with what is wrong in the Church today. The Church today is no longer salt and light to the world and the ungodly. The Church today is becoming part of the world, and part of the ungodly. God bless,Stever *** (from above, in regards to the Pope) The powers of the pope are defined by the Dogmatic Constitution (ch.3, s.8) such that "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment" and that "the sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon" (can. 331 defines the power of the pope as "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power"). It also dogmatically defined (ch.4, s.9) the doctrine of Papal infallibility, sc. such that" when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature to be united to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII). This teaching is often summarized by the phrase "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church exists no salvation), which has been reaffirmed by many popes throughout the centuries. Blessed John XXIII said: "Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved." Pope Paul VI also said: "Those outside the Church DO NOT POSSESS THE HOLY SPIRIT. The CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONE IS THE BODY OF CHRIST... and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit." Jerome's Latin Vulgate which finds its foundation in the works of Origen (a heretic)
Hi Steve,I read the whooole thing. Interesting. I don't know why there is such a war over this. I guess the eyes of eyes that don't see are so blinded to the Truth of Christ in the Believer that they would accept anything they think would make it easier to read about God. Big difference in reading about and knowing Him.If I let it my mind would go into a million peaches if it were not for the peace of God. Its got to be getting close to the end.Good Job Steve.In Christ: Phillip
Stever posts:This is the summary, that should put this entire matter of "Which Version" into perspective:THE INQUISITIONWhat does this have to do with Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? The Roman Catholic Church has tried for years to destroy Protestantism and return all Christendom under Rome's Authority. Millions of people were put to death, not in war, but by various means of torture and murder during the Inquisition. The Roman church, using the Inquisition, made Adolph Hitler look like a piker. Hitler murdered six million Jews – a most heinous sin and crime – but during the Inquisition from just after 1200 to around 1750 A.D. as many as SIXTY EIGHT MILLION HUMAN BEINGS WERE CRUELLY SLAIN, ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD! A sizable number of the slain were themselves Roman Catholics who had been falsely accused for political and selfish motives. IT WAS A BLOOD BATH, A HORROR STORY!Most of the major wars fought in Europe beginning in the middle 1500's and extending for several centuries were conducted for the purpose of bringing the Protestants back under the dominion of the Pope. Then, in 1870, when it was decided by a portion of the Church to "update" the Bible of the Reformation which had brought about the breaking away from Romanism (that wicked system that had strangled Tyndale and burned his body, that had murdered sixty-eight million people who would not bow to it, that had slaughtered 70,000 people at one time in the St. Bartholomew's day massacre) the Great Whore said in effect: "You Protestants are going to update your Bible? Here, look what we just found on the Vatican shelf. Would you like to use Vaticanus B to assist you toward that end?" Yet the revisors were not even the least suspicious. Is not that amazing? When a similar ploy was tried on Erasmus in 1515, he saw through it. Why should the Vatican suddenly want to help the Reformers? We shall examine why presently.What then are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They are two extant (still existing) MSS of the original fifty which EUSEBIUS had copied out for CONSTANTINE beginning in 331 A.D. Of course, Eusebius did not copy them personally but oversaw and supervised the work. B was discovered in 1481 in the VATICAN LIBRARY. Tischendorf, a German text critic, discovered Sinaiticus Aleph in a WASTE BASKET at a MOSASTERY near the foot of Mount Sinai in 1844.They are derived from Origen's fifth column of the Hexapla and his New Testament. Again, Origen was the "Christian" infidel who deliberately altered Biblical text and, with the aid of fourteen stenographers, changed it to fit his own beliefs.JEROME AND THE LATIN VULGATEThere is one more piece of the puzzle to be added. Jerome, the hermit of Bethlehem, was commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the entire Latin Bible. Jerome completed the Gospels around A.D. 384. About 386, he came to Jerusalem under the auspices of the Church at Rome and began to update the Old Latin Bible. What did Jerome use as his standard for this task? Jerome based his Old Testament primarily on the Hebrew text in Origen's Hexapla and admits to using the other columns (his 5th and those of the Ebionites) to "correct" the text. He relied heavily upon Origen's edited New Testament to finish the revision. The entire work was completed c.405. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, although maligned by the Roman church for years, was accepted at the 1546 A.D. Council of Trent as that cult's official "Bible". It is still being used today.PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, PLEASENow let us review. What is Jerome's Latin Vulgate? It is a version derived from Origen's fifth column and his edited New Testament. What are Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph? They were taken from Origen's fifth column and his edited New Testament by Eusebius. What was the Greek text used by Westcott and Hort? It was taken directly from Origen as 90% is word for word from Vaticanus B and, of the remaining 10%, about 7% is Sinaiticus Aleph. In other words, Westcott and Hort came to the 1881 Revision Committee, having worked in secret for over twenty years on a Greek text which was derived from two (though mainly from one) of the copies which Eusebius had prepared for Constantine, these manuscripts having been produced from Origen's work! The translation was Origen's sole endeavor, his private interpretation – and we have already examined his beliefs! Westcott and Hort succeeded in getting the committee to accept almost word for word this Greek text, replacing Erasmus' Greek text of the Reformation.Thus we see that the text of Westcott and Hort, from which Nestle's text is derived and all the modern translations have as their foundation, is the same as the Catholic Vulgate – for Jerome, like Eusebius, relied upon Origen's work! The point being made is that equals of equals are equal. Thus, the readings in the new Protestant Bibles are almost the same as the Roman Bible and most of the passages that militate against much of the Roman heresies and errors are either altered or omitted, greatly facilitating the ecumenical efforts to bring about the return to Rome.The reader should discern therefore that the Latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Nestle's Greek text (or the Aland-Nestle26 or UBS3), Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, and WESTCOTT-HORT ARE TERMS FOR IDEAS THAT ARE INSEPARABLE.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXI truly hope you actually completely read the post above.We can all trust the King James Bible, and cannot trust the newer versions (INCLUDING THE NEW KING JAMES).God bless,SteverPS:The reader should discern therefore that the Latin Vulgate, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the Hexapla, Nestle's Greek text (or the Aland-Nestle26 or UBS3), Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, and WESTCOTT-HORT ARE TERMS FOR IDEAS THAT ARE INSEPARABLE.
Hia Stever, I wasn't trying to be rude to you on my other thread, nor was Chris.What he said was true for the direction I was hoping to keep it going in .... but I also feel I owe you an apology and an explanation.I've posted this before a few times since last year ... but just for butting you off that thread "sorta" --- it's worth repeating so you don't feel your words/time or post was wasted.I LOVE e-sword and this is why ....This is Phil 1:9 using the "Parallel" mode, and choosing these four version options .... GNT-TR\t- KJV - KJV+ - GNT-TR+\t GNT-TR 9 και τουτο προσευχομαι ινα η αγαπη υμων ετι μαλλον και μαλλον περισσευη εν επιγνωσει και παση αισθησει\tKJV 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; \tKJV+ 9 And2532 this5124 I pray,4336 that2443 your5216 love26 may abound4052 yet2089 more3123 and2532 more3123 in1722 knowledge1922 and2532 in all3956 judgment;144 \tGNT-TR+ 9 και2532 CONJ τουτο5124 D-ASN προσευχομαι4336 V-PNI-1S ινα2443 CONJ η3588 T-NSF αγαπη26 N-NSF υμων5216 P-2GP ετι2089 ADV μαλλον3123 ADV και2532 CONJ μαλλον3123 ADV περισσευη4052 V-PAS-3S εν1722 PREP επιγνωσει1922 N-DSF και2532 CONJ παση3956 A-DSF αισθησει144 N-DSF If you have the e-sword, you know that you can also use the "Compare" mode and get up to at least 20 versions up there at once to check a verse.I read any verse I'm studying in the GNT-TR+ version, then find which version best matches that verse, BUT only after getting the definitions and Grammar on that verse first.Without the Grammar, there's no real way to exegete a verse.And even though I'm a Textus Receptus nut ... guess which version did best on just this verse.The World English Bible (WEB) = Phil 1:9 - This I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment.That doesn't go to saying that the whole of the WEB is good or the best, but for this one verse it hit it best.And all because of that last word there #144 is better translated "discernment".Phi 1:9 - Judgment (αισθήσει)Only here in the New Testament. Rev., better, discernment: sensitive moral perception. Used of the senses, as Xenophon: “perception of things sweet or pungent” (“Memorabilia,” i., 4, 5). Of hearing: “It is possible to go so far away as not to afford a hearing” (“Anabasis,” iv., 6, 13). The senses are called αισθήσεις. See Plato, “Theaetetus,” 156. Plato uses it of visions of the gods (“Phaedo,” 111). Compare αισθητήρια senses, Heb_5:14. Discernment selects, classifies, and applies what is furnished by knowledge.\tVWSPhi 1:9 - May abound (perisseuēi). Present active subjunctive of perisseuō, may keep on overflowing, a perpetual flood of love, “yet more and more” (eti mallon kai mallon), but with necessary limitations (river banks), “in knowledge” (en epignōsei, in full knowledge) “and all discernment” (pāsēi aisthēsei). The delicate spiritual perception (aisthēsis, old word from aisthanomai, only here in N.T. as the verb only in Luk_9:45 in N.T.) can be cultivated as in aisthētērion (Heb_5:14) RWPSo that's how I do it. One word at a time, in each verse at a time, from the TR. I memorize the KJV because it's the one that has the most Greek study aid books numbered to the Strong's and because of the TR.And why do I do it one word at a time --- BECAUSE I'M A WORSER FANATIC THEN YOU ARE ... Haaa. Only Playing. Hope this helps to ease any uneasiness you felt. And then here's Barnes Notes on that one very neat and sweet verse.Phi 1:9 - And this I pray - We pray for those whom we love, and whose welfare we seek. We desire their happiness; and there is no way more appropriate of expressing that desire than of going to God, and seeking it at his hand. Paul proceeds to enumerate the blessings which he sought for them; and it is worthy of observation that he did not ask riches, or worldly prosperity, but that his supplications were confined to spiritual blessings, and he sought these as the most desirable of all favors.That your love may abound ... - Love to God; love to one another; love to absent Christians; love to the world. This is an appropriate subject of prayer. We cannot wish and pray for a better thing for our Christian friends, than that they may abound in love. Nothing will promote their welfare like this; and we had better pray for this, than that they may obtain abundant riches, and share the honors and pleasures of the world.In knowledge - The idea is, that he wished them to have intelligent affection. It should not be mere blind affection, but that intelligent love which is based on an enlarged view of divine things - on a just apprehension of the claims of God.And in all judgment - Margin, “sense;” compare the notes at Heb_5:14. The word here means, the power of discerning; and the meaning is, that he wished that their love should be exercised with proper discrimination. It should be in proportion to the relative value of objects; and the meaning of the whole is, that the wished their religion to be intelligent and discriminating; to be based on knowledge, and a proper sense of the relative value of objects, as well as to be the tender affection of the heart.And then in more CONTEXT ~Phi 1:8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. Phi 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; Phi 1:10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; Phi 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. Amen. :-D
Dear MeAgain:If I look at the king James I find:9. And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;I surely know what abound means. The only word that I'm not certain of in this verse is "judgment". Strongs tells me that in this instance judgment means discernment--judgment:Strong's Number: 144 Transliterated: aisthesis Phonetic: ah'-ee-sthay-sis Text: from 143; perception, i.e. (figuratively) discernment: --judgment. I would rather stay with the King James, that is tried and true. My jumping around and comparing one version against another, I become more like the "Textural Critic" that I feel has created this whole mess. What I mean by that, is go to the 3rd chapter of Genesis, where we find the first prophecy of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, the seed of the woman. If you don't actually read this from the KJV, you will miss the entire prophecy. The reason? The "Textural Critics", starting with Origen, have changed the Received Text (or Majority Text) and replaced it with their own Minority Text that completely elimates this prophecy--one of the most important in the Bible.KJV Genesis 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.""It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal." The first Adam proved to be a covenant breaker, and brought sin into the world: God therefore, to secure the second covenant from being broken, puts it into the hands of the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ.This is the first prophecy of the Messiah in the Bible, found in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. Now, COMPARE THE ABOVE, FROM THE KJV, WITH THE NIV:(15) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (small h) will crush your head, and you will strike his (small h) heel.The NIV, the Catholic Bible, as well as all of the other newer versions of the Bible miss this first prophecy of the coming Messiah, that would take away the sin of the world. The Messiah that would crush Satan’s head by taking the keys to death and hell, and the serpent, Satan, who would bruise Christ’s heel. Only in the capital punishment of crucifixion is the heel bruised. Because the person on the cross is gasping for breath, he constantly pushes with his heel, that is nailed against the cross, upward.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxAs a Protestant Christian believer, I feel safe with the King James Version.God bless,Stever
Hi Steve,What does this remind you of? NIV: (15) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he (small h) will crush your head, and you will strike his (small h) heel.Surely you won't die, for God knows you will be just like Him. The above in the NIV, takes out of Christ's Hands and puts it in ours to overcome and says Satan wins, This puts Christ as man only, not the God Man Jesus Christ.This is the greatest attack Satan has dared make so far, although he has never stopped trying to make Christ man only. This takes away from the Godly Seed in Mary and Makes Mary the Chosen one, to bring forth just a man. All that is coming against the truth is overwhelming. All the new translations, the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Judas, the D-code, and on and on. I am with Paul. Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.Finally; Galatians 1:11-12 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.What is Paul's Gospel? Colossians 1:25-27 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:In Christ: Phillip
READ ONLY THE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!Anyone for any other version...is of the devil......i dont care if it is in greek IT HAS TO BE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!!!!!!!lol ok no......lets not go to extremes....Hey here's a question....was King James a christian? anyway and on the other hand...i read the KJV it is by far the closest to the original greek....and i have little difficulty in reading it. ummm i do recomend the KJV over any other version...and coming from a greek church by far it is the best....although the KJV is not innerant...it has far less mistakes than any other version that i know of.Having said that....i must say that i do not condemn others for reading easier to read versions...the best out of these is the NKJV.Theres my 2 cents.God bless ya!
W_D_J_D wrote:READ ONLY THE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!Anyone for any other version...is of the devil......i dont care if it is in greek IT HAS TO BE ACIENT GREEK!!!!!!!!!!!!lol ok no......lets not go to extremes....Hey here's a question....was King James a christian? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:The above is real cute. Christinyou just responded to my post about the Seed of the Woman, Jesus Christ. The NIV and all of the newer versions have taken Christ out of the 1st Prophecy in the Bible, and replaced Jesus Christ with mankind. The Pope really wants it this way, as the Catholic Church believes that the Pope will bring in the 1,000 year reign on this earth. Jesus Christ's return to this earth is no where to be found in their doctrine. There is no room for Christ to come back and rule and reign in their Gospel.The problem is, and continues to be, the Protestant Bible, the King James, has been hijacked by the NIV and all of the newer versions. Many, many of the truths in the King James are gone, and are either missing or at the very least waterered down. Why is the Protestant Body of Christ so confused about God's total abhorance to sin? Because the Church today is steeped in sin. Even Pastors are having difficulty with pornography on the internet. How can that be? Because their Protestant Bible has been replaced with a counterfeit Bible, with the blessings of the Catholic Church. Well, there it is, that is my two cents as well.God bless,Stever
funny you say that stever......i read the NIV and i still was very strong in the faith.....ummm as for the reason for the downfall??? its not because of the NIV and others it is because of man kinds sin......false prophets, the prosperity, the lack of prayer....the everything... its not because of the NIV.....lol having said that again, i would like to say also that people who i meet that have very week theology usualy read the NIV...(coincidence)??? perhaps it is now they have fallen away from the truth the dont have the dexterity to stick with the KJV and opt for the easier read....i dunnoGod bless ya all!
W_D_J_D wrote:funny you say that stever......i read the NIV and i still was very strong in the faith.....ummm as for the reason for the downfall??? its not because of the NIV and others it is because of man kinds sin......false prophets, the prosperity, the lack of prayer....the everything... its not because of the NIV.....lol having said that again, i would like to say also that people who i meet that have very week theology usualy read the NIV...(coincidence)??? perhaps it is now they have fallen away from the truth the dont have the dexterity to stick with the KJV and opt for the easier read....i dunnoGod bless ya all! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: The reason can be found within God's word. The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles. The Minority Text comes straight from Origen, the heretic, as well as the work of Eusebius. Then later, Westcott and Hort got involved as well. They re-wrote the Majority text to satisfy their heresy.Satan always wants to help out Gods children. If he can make the Word of God LESS, he will do whatever he can. If he can take out God's Truth, he will do it. How? Simplify it, make it easier to read, that should hook them.You said it all in your previous post:"Having said that....i must say that i do not condemn others for reading easier to read versions...the best out of these is the NKJV."The New King James also relies on the Minority Text, and is not a modernization of the King James, that relies totally on the Majority Text.The New King James has a very little, wee bit of the majority text, but a tremendous amount of the minority text.Check it out, and you will see it plain and clear.God bless,Stever
Stever's response: The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???
Combat_Chuck wrote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response: The Body of Christ today knows little to nothing about the history of the Protestant Bible.This is from the book by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones entitled "Which Version is the Bible" and hopefully will provide some light on the matter:ERASMUS RESTORES THE SCRIPTURES (THE RECEIVED TEXT)The Greek upon which the King James translation was based was first printed in A.D. 1516 at Basle, Switzerland, under the editorship of the famous Dutchman, Desiderius Erasmus. As a Scholar, Erasmus was without peer – the intellectual giant of Europe in his day. Erasmus was ever at work, visiting libraries, collecting, comparing, writing and publishing.Europe was rocked by his works which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, and the general bigotry and wickedness within the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the "Fathers" (letters etc. written by the early Church pastors which taken as a whole contain almost the entire New Testament). The study of these letters is called Patristics. Today, many who deprecate the pure teachings of the Received Text dismiss Erasmus and pervert the facts in order to belittle his work. While he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price! The Emperor of Germany likewise. Indeed, the Pope offered him the position of Cardinal. Erasmus resolutely declined not being willing to compromise his beliefs or conscience. France and Spain beckoned him to their realm while Holland proudly claimed him as her most distinguished son.Book after book came from his labors. The demand for them was overwhelming. His crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. AT LAST, AFTER ONE THOUSAND YEARS, THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS PRINTED IN ITS ORIGINAL TONGUE (A.D.1516). Astonished and confounded, Europe – the intellectual, civilized cradle of the world – deluged by superstitions, coarse traditions, and monkeries, read the pure story of the Gospel. In a letter dated 13 August, 1521 to Peter Barbirius, Erasmus wrote:"I did my best with the New Testament, but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee PRETENDED to have discovered 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars (proof), and could not have them." (Edward Lee afterwards became Archbishop of York).Consider and reflect upon this – the foremost scholar in the entire civilized world said the work was his "best". Such men have both egos and detractors. Erasmus would never have put his name on an undertaking which would have left him exposed and defenseless before his enemies and critics.When Erasmus came to Basle in A.D. 1515 for the purpose of assembling a complete Greek New Testament, he had only five Greek cursive minuscules of the New Testament at his disposal. For the most part, he utilized a 15th century manuscript for the Gospels but used an 11th or 12th century manuscript on occasion. He used a 12th or 13th century manuscript for the Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus had a 15th century manuscript of the Acts and the Epistles which he also used occasionally, and he had a 12th century manuscript of Revelation. The last six verses of the Revelation manuscript were missing so he used the Latin Vulgate version to complete the chapter.Erasmus' Greek New Testament has been often criticized on the grounds that he had so little data at his command from which to draw and that they were "late" copies. However, Erasmus did not go to the task unprepared. Although he had only five late minuscules, he had already translated a Latin New Testament and in preparation for this labor had collected and gathered variant readings from many Greek manuscripts. He journeyed all over Europe to libraries and to anyone from whom he could gather readings from manuscripts. Erasmus organized his findings and made notes for himself concerning the different readings. These travels brought him into contact with several hundred manuscripts and Erasmus divided them into two camps, i.e., THOSE HE CONSIDERED SPURIOUS AND THOSE HE DEEMED GENUINE AND TRUSTWORTHY. The spurious group was a small percentage of the whole and mainly agreed with the Latin Vulgate readings (that is what the Catholic Bible relies on 100%). Of the several hundred, between 90 to 95% had the same text. This group Erasmus judged to contain the true God given text.Naturalistic critics think that the presence and availability for Erasmus' use of these five Basle minuscules was merely an unhappy accident. But these men do not reckon sufficiently with the providence of God – that God has promised to overlook His Word. The text which Erasmus published was really not his own.It was taken virtually without change from these few manuscripts which God providentially placed at his disposal. The text contained in these manuscripts eventually came to be known as the "Textus Receptus" (the Received Text).To emphasize and demonstrate the above, we quote the late Herman C. Hoskier. Hoskier gave thirty years to the task of collating a majority of the available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation. His conclusion, based upon the 200 plus extant manuscripts he examined, was:"I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better ... " As Moorman relates, this is truly a powerful example of God's guiding providence in preserving the true text though but one late mss containing the Revelation was available to Erasmus at Basle. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxI will continue this in additional posts.God bless,SteverStever's response: The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???
Combat_Chuck wrote:
Stever's response: The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???[/quote}xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:Erasmus had all of the writings of the Early Church Fathers at his disposal. In these writings, almost the entire New Testament can be found in them.THE RESEARCH OF JOHN BURGON AND EDWARD MILLER INTO PATRISTIC QUOTATION (THE QUOTATIONS OF SCRIPTURE FOUND IN THE LETTERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS)Apart from searching through the writings of the Church Fathers individually, a primary source for information his been the massive compilation of John Burgon. He gathered 86,489 patristic Scripture quotations. These are bound in 16 volumes and located at the British Museum. After his death, Edward Miller gathered and edited much of Dr. Burgon's material. He prepared a book entitled. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" (1896). In this work, he undertakes the mammoth task of categorizing the patristic quotations according to its textual type. Below is a table of 76 Church Fathers who died before 400 AD. The number of titles each refers to the TR (Textus Receptus that fuels the King James) or WH (Westcott-Hort who fueled all of the "New Bible versions) kind of text is tabulated. The overall ratio was three to two in favor of the TR. That is 60% for the Textus Receptus and 40% for the Westcott-Hort Minority Text.Kenyon says the following about Miller's research -The results of his examination are stated by him is follows. Taking the Greek and Latin (not the Syriac) Fathers who died before AD 400, their quotations are found to support the TR in 2,630 instances (that is the distinctive TR readings), the WH text in 1753. Nor is this majority due solely to the writers who belong to the end of this period. On the contrary, if only the earliest writers be taken, from Clement of Rome to Irenaeus and Hippolytus (AD 97 - 236), the majority in favor of the Textus Receptus is proportionately even greater, 151 (64%) to 84 (36%). Only in the Western and Alexandrian writers do we find approximate equality of votes on either side. Further, if a select list of- thirty important passages be taken for detailed examination, the preponderance of early preponderance evidence in favor of the Textus Receptus is seen to be no less than 530 (75.7%)to 170 (24.28%), a quite overwhelming majority."Kenyon attempted to refute this evidence by stating that later editors "doctored" the patristic quotations to align them with the TR. See Pickering for a refutation of this totally unworthy objection. If this did occur, a wide variation among different editors of a given Father's quotations should be the norm. Miller’s research did not find very much variation. Kenyon admitted as much when he said, "the errors arising from this source would hardly affect the general result."Edward Miller's survey and tabulation is according to Pickering limited to the four Gospels. In this day of the computer, it would be interesting to see a complete tabulation. However, surveys since Miller's time in the remainder of the NT show the same preponderance of support for the TR (Textus Receptus).It should also be noted that Miller's tabulations included only those readings which were either accepted as being a part of the TR tradition, or were accepted by Westcott and Hort in their critical text. Variant readings outside of those were not included.Wilbur Pickering gives the following abbreviated summary:"TR readings are recognized most notably by - "100 - l50 AD The Didache, Diognetus, Justin Martyr150 - 200 AD Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, Irenaeus200 - 250 AD Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, Origen200 - 300 AD Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Archelaus300 - 400 AD Eusebius, Athanasius, Macarius Magnus, Hilary, Didymus, Basil, Titus of Bostra, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Apostolic Canons and Constitutions, Epiphanius, Ambrose.SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER1. Most tampering of the text took place before 200 and most was done in the Western areas furthest from the location of the original autographs (Try Alexandria, Egypt).Colwell says, "The overwhelming majority of variant readings were created before the year 200." Scrivener says, "The worst corruptions to which the NT his ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed.'' Kilpatrick states, "The creation of new variants ceased by 200 AD because it became impossible to sell them."Between 18 and 24 of the 27 Neow Testament books were written originally to cities in Asia Minor and Greece. None was written to Alexandria. But it was the Western and Alexandrian Fathers who became the most prominent and prolific in their writings, and being far from the autographs could take greater liberties and were more susceptible to a corrupted text. Most patristic quotations are from precisely these fathers. Yet even with this disadvantage, the TR has a 3:2 majority. After this period of disruption is passed, textual history shows the TR regaining an overwhelming advantage.The above is borne out by Miller's research. "The advantage of the TR over the WH before Origen was 2:1, setting aside Justin Martyr, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. If these four are included, the advantage of the TR drops to 1.33:1, since the confusion which is most obvious in Origen is already observable in these men. From Origen to Macarius Magnus (early 300's), the advantage drops to 1.24:1 while from Macarius to 400 AD it is back up to 2:1."2. There is the Scripture principle, that "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." I Cor. 1:27. Regarding the preservation and transmission of the NT Scriptures, it is believed that when all the evidence is in this principle will have been shown to be upheld. In speaking to Dr. Tom Strouse, he felt that John Burgon erred at this point - that it was not primarily through the famous bishops and fathers that the Word was preserved, but rather the humble believer. The priesthood of the believer was the means, not ecclesiastical authority.A survey of the leading Fathers shows much doctrinal deviation. Consider our own day; is it the famous church leaders who contend for the preservation and purity of God's Word, or humble believers scattered around the world. It his always been, "the common people heard Him gladly. Luther called the Church Fathers, the Church "Babies"!3. Pre 400 AD patristic citations favor the TR over the WH by a 3:2 margin. But this gives the impression that the WH represents a unified kind of text. It does not! Whereas the TR is reasonably unified, the WH is a hopeless Grouping of conflicting readings. The only thing they have in common is their disagreement with the TR, but conflict among themselves is almost as great. There is only one textual family, the TR. Everything else is confusion.Thus the main pillar of the Westcott and Hort theory ("Readings characteristic of the Received Text are never found prior to 350") - has completely crumbled in the light of the evidence.Miller concludes -"As far as the writers who died before 400 AD are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the TR as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the TR was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let anyone who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or the text of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has now been placed before the reader."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxTo be continued- I hope that you have come this far. It is worth the read.God Bless,Stever
Combat_Chuck wrote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever Continues:SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THE EARLY PATRISTIC SUPPORT FOR RECEIVED TEXT (KING JAMES)READINGSASSERTION-"There is no unambiguous evidence that the Byzantine Text-type was known before the middle of the fourth century," D. A. Carson.The above is a false assertion!DOCUMENTATION:KJV Mark 1:l, 2 Irenaeus (130-202)\t"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ., the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets..." "Mark...does thus commence his Gospel narrative; 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets,.., Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him...whom they confessed as God and Lord" (Against Heresies III:10:5, 11:4, 16:3).KJV Mark 16:19 Irenaeus (130-202)\t"So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." ''Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: so then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies III:10:6).KJV Luke 22:44 Justin (100-165)\t"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, 'If it be possible., let this cup pass.'" (Trypho 103:24).KJV Jn 1:18 Irenaeus (130-202)\t"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." "the only begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father ..."(Against Heresies III:11:6), 'the only begotten Son, who..." (IV:20:6) "the only begotten Son, which (IV:20:11).KJV John. 3:l3 Hippolytus (170-236)\t"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus I:1:4).KJV John 5:3, 4 Tertullian (160- 221)\t"...waiting for the moving of the water, For an angel went down at a certain season unto the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." "if it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in Waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was want to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing ceased to complain."(on Baptism I:1:5)KJV Jn. 6:69 Irenaeus (130-.202)\t"And we believe and are sure that thou are that Christ the Son of the living God." "By whom also Peter, having been taught, recognized Christ as the Son of the living God..." (Against Heresies III:11:6).KJV John. 14:l7\t" ... but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."P66 (c. 200)\t" ... shall be in you."KJV Acts 8:36 - 37\t"…See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Cyprian (200-258)\t"In the Acts of the Apostles: 'Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:43).KJV I Tim. 3:16 \t"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..." Ignatius (35-116)\t"God was in the flesh" (To the Ephesians I:1:7).Hippolytus (170-236)\t"God was manifested in the flesh" (Against the Heresies of Noetus I:1:17).Dionysius (3rd cent.)\t"For God was manifested in the flesh" (Conciliations I:1:853).KJV I John 5:7-8\t"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."Cyprian (200-258)\t"The Lord says, "I and the Father are one.,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ‘and these three are one.'" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6)KJV Rev. 22:14\t"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."Tertullian (160-221)\t"Blessed are they who act according to the precepts, that they may have power over the tree of life, and over the gates., for entering into the holy city." (On Modesty I:19:2).CONCLUSIONKJV II Pet. 3:16\t"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."Tertullian (160-221)\t"Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of its own purposes." (On Prescriptions Against Heresies I:7:l).xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI truly pray that this has opened some eyes.God bless,SteverStever's response: The Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, comes straight from the Apostles.The textus receptus comes "straight from the Apostles" ???