A question for TR people

At the website http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/landmark/index.html is a paper titled, IN DEFENSE OF LEARNING GREEK and under the heading Fundamentalists Improperly Frown on the Greek is the following quote, "Today, some nervously trained in King James Only controversy repeat with Dr. Sam Gipp “If the AV1611 is the perfect, preserved word of God, there is no need 'to go to the Greek.4'

Imagine God choosing to have the NT written in Greek and then about 2000 years later an American claims that God came along with a corrected version in the KJV 1611 almost 400 years ago and about 400 years after English came into being. I wonder what folks did without English? Do you suppose they must have been without God's corrected version for about 1611 years?

 

The entire response series has been deleted. Please stick to the topic and use the report post button instead.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

 

I modified the above a bit. But by-and-large it was an excellent post. Facts are needed against the rumor-mill of the KJVO crowd.

 

And RSR did a classy job above on the same subject.

 

That site reminds me of what Sowell says about liberals at 1:56 in the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88

 

Even John Burgon in The Revision Revised called W&H well meaning and sincere men, but wrong nonetheless in his opinion (although sometimes strongly stated).

Basically (or so it seems to me) W&H felt that earlier (mss date) was/were better worded and the shorter rendition of a disputed passage was the better and that the Byzantine priests had smoothed (conflated) the preceding Greek texts.

On the other hand Burgon felt that the Alexandrian scribes were careless and made many copyist mistakes.

There were other factors:

e.g.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

Burgon devotes a whole chapter to this variant and has to do with the Koine shorthand for the word theos and the Koine word for "who".​

There were no personal attacks although sometimes there were questions from Burgon concerning judgment on the part of W&H.

HankD

 

Laurence M. Vance is a KJV-only author, who was associated with Peter Ruckman. His Vance Publications is located in Pensacola, Florida.

 

KJV-only advocates have shown that they will refuse to consider and believe the truth because of their KJV-only bias.

Do KJV-only advocates believe the well-established fact that the KJV translators borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament even though that English translation was not mentioned in their rules?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwe_nxeVwE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ld7av-AN9c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5_50wNml40

KJVO advocates remind me of what Sowell says about liberals at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88

 

Do they believe that the Kjv team "borrowed" from Bishop and Geneva, and even the Vulgate?

 

The Geneva...

 

They took over in to the Kjv about75 % of that translation, didn't they?

 

that makes sense!

So the "family tree" of the source etxts used means that Kjv/Geneva/Bishop etc would all share a large amount same translation, sorta why the Synoptic Gospels have much in common?

 

Neither......it's simply that they are both quality (if imperfect) Translations of the inerrant Word of God. The difference between KJVO and others is that we read that Jesus Christ "opened up the 'SCRIPTURES' " (that's the inerrant Word of God) and read from them.

A non-kjvo would insist that Jesus wasn't reading from inspired "Scripture"...only an imperfect copy of an inspired Original.

A KJVO (or TRO) <---that's how I lean, would insist that:
1.) "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"........
and
2.) That Jesus read from "SCRIPTURE".

Thus, although Jesus clearly didn't have an "original"...they maintain that SCRIPTURE is known and knowable and can be followed and known perfectly....word for word.

That doesn't mean we always translate it perfectly, it means that this idea that "Only the originals were 'inspired' " is hog-wash. They believe his written Word has been preserved perfectly. This rules out it's mere meaningless and ethereal preservation "in heaven" which means functionally NOTHING to us. And therefore it's our job to translate it faithfully.

That essentially rules out any idea that say, the last 11 verses of the book of Mark are ("Meh, who cares Tomato, Tomahto, whateva' )

That's my best answer of how they see it.
A TRO thinks that if Acts 8:37 isn't critical...and neither is Mark 16:9-20 critical (or knowable) than no one has any REAL clue whether God has preserved ANY of his WRITTEN words at all. How do you distinguish which words belong or don't?? We have at best a good and educated guess.

God didn't PROVABLY either preserve those words nor prevent un-inspired words from infesting God's Divine Words did he?

What actually bothers ME isn't that Modern Translations don't claim Mark 16:9-20 inspired, it's that they don't seem to give a FIG whether they are in fact preserved SCRIPTURE or NOT! It's not simply "Meh, whateva' " include them, ya know, or not. but give liner note that it might just as easily be a load of crap. My view is...Take a STAND!

Did God preserve his WORDS or just well, Most of them, and it's your best guess which ones... :laugh: Happy hunting sucka's! BWAH HA HA HA HA!

That's not an acceptable P.O.V. to a TR Only.

You can't point to God's providential preservation of his WORDS if you aren't either TRO only or heck CT only if you want...not if you are consistent anyway. I'd rather Modern Versions skip those "deleted" verses, and not even bother with a liner note that they MIGHT be Scripture....just we dunno for sure... PBBBTH. :tongue3: Skip them like a man I say...don't INCLUDE THEM and then say "the Oldest and best MSS admit"...to T.R. only, that's cop-out crap. That's how I believe T.R.O's see it.

Let's ask a few questions of non-TRO's for clarity....to non-TRO:

1.) Is Mark 16:9-20 the inspired inerrant preserved Words of God or not?
2.) If they AREN'T, why do Modern Versions include them?
3.) If they ARE...than why utilize or have faith in manuscripts which exclude them?
4.) Did God preserve all of his words ON EARTH for us to read? or only the general Theological THRUST of doctrine?
5.) Were the verses which the CT omits infestations of some sort which worked their way INTO the extant manuscripts?
6.) What system do you use to ferret out the un-inspired infestations of Scripture to preserve the correct words?

Maybe hearing an answer to those questions will help you see how TRO's view it Dale.
Whatever answers you'll get from that...........that's why there are TRO's and everyone else.

 

Evidently God did not preserve all His original language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles according to any TR-only or to KJV-only theory. The TR-only position does not actually advocate any consistent view of preservation of the original language words of Scripture.

There are actually twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus that were printed with some of the textual differences even involving whole verses.

The varying editions of the Textus Receptus have some readings not found in preserved Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts because they were added from the Latin Vulgate in some cases or because they were added by conjecture.

 

So then, your personal answer to question no. 4 is:

"God didn't in fact, preserve his actual "words" in an identifiable and knowable form"...only the general thrust of most passages, give or take a verse or so."

Is that an accurate way to describe your position? If not, then answer it rather than answer it for T.R.O's...you AREN'T one, and no one asked you your take on what you think T.R.O's say.............

But thanks anyway for the un-solicited random rant....

I wasn't asking Logos' KJV-hating take on the T.R.O. position, neither was Dale, I was suggesting he might learn from asking the NON-T.R.O's THEIR TAKE on those questions....

If you wanna quote MY QUESTION...then answer it, as I did Dale's.

We all know your capacity for trashing everything KJVO...you've nothing more to add to your resume' on your loathing of KJV...I'm interested in your ability to actually answer that question.

If you wanna quote my questions...then answer them yourself... don't supply us with your take on what a T.R.O. says.