All the ANSWERS -- right here!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am posting this on the translations site for one reason, so bear with me a minute.

    Tell me the story of The Bible Answerman (Hank H.). The good, the bad, and the ugly. . .

    I was listening to one of his programs the other night and he made a remark that modern Biblical scholarship has proven that the NKJV was translated from the best documents available today. When five minutes earlier, he mentioned that the good documents today were not available to the KJV authors.

    I realize the TR and the KJV don't always agree and also realize that the KJV is more of an upgraded Bishop's than a stand-alone translation, but I wonder why he makes this comment?

    Also, while you are at it, tell us what he believes about the end-time prophecy. I understand it is quite radical.

    I did notice on his show that he can quote the Bible very well, but he is VERY non-commital to its literalness.

    A caller asked about the dinos and humans. He said that some people believe the six days were ages and some people believe they were literal and the dino's lived back then as mentioned by the Job accounts. That was the extent of his answer, which I thought for the man who knows the Bible as well as he claims was a pretty weak stance on literalness. IMHO

    What's the deal with this guy? Anybody know his history and theology?
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm moving this up again, I would like some info on this please. I am not trying to cut the man down. His basic theology of salvation "appears" at first glance to be solid.

    I simply want to know if listening to him with a discerning mind is not going to take someone who is not well versed in the Bible down a crooked path.
     
  3. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't get is radio show here in BR,La. But Iread his book "Christianity in Crissis" he seems to be solid. he is president of CRI--the Christian Research Institute. However, that is not the web site name, last time I visited his site (about a year ago) I found it pretty easy with a Google search.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    P -

    The B.A.M. has been around for a while. Remember, he's human and fallible, like everyone else.

    Regarding his comments about the KJV / NJKV, he's referring to the older and more reliable Greek texts that we have today, that the KJV treanslators didn't have access to. The NKJV, while it adheres primarily to the TR as the KJV did, references the older texts where there is variance, and footnotes those variances where they appear. Remember, however, that a topic concerning "best" translations is always subject to personal preference, and the BAM is no exception. Just because he prefers the NKJV doesn't mean that everyone with a NIV or NAS should toss them aside.

    As for the dinos and humans question, scripture is silent on them. He's the Bible Answer Man, not the preacher man. So for him to have little or no comment where the Bible is silent should be expected.

    As for his views on end times, again, he's the BAM, not preacher man. Whenever someone discusses end times views, they're speculating at best. As the BAM, he tends to shy away from speculation, and adhere strictly to the topic of what scriptures say in a certain area.
     
  5. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I have been quite impressed with his answers. He seems to know the Bible very well and can rattle off scripture obviously without having to search (even with a computer). It is my understanding that he memorized large portions of it.

    His salvation story relates that he questioned the Bible, the creation and other things that brought him to belief in God and Jesus Christ. He supposedly memorized large portions of the Bible.

    Yes, thanks for reminding me. I do understand that he is human in certainly not perfect. I just wanted to make sure he was not a wolf in sheeps clothing teaching some strange doctrine about space-crafts in the tail of a comet that is a result of the Lord coming back to pick us up. blah blah blah

    His website (is this legal? -- if not admins can erase this) is www.equip.org

    You can find his programs there (once you get past the fund-raising stuff).

    He keeps past programs in an archive, but it doesn't go back very far.

    Bott Radio network plays him and Bott is owned by an SBC member. They mostly carry things like Adrian Rogers; --- they do carry "Kennedy" (can't remember his first name--from the conservative group of Presbyterians. That is about as far away from Baptist as they will stray.

    So, I thought that The Bible Answerman was probably a reasonably decent show.

    AND, you are right, he is non-commital on issues that are debated often by Christians--he tells both sides and leaves it at that. Nothing wrong with that.

    Thanks JohnV and Eaglewing
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Make sure everyone caught the salient fact about the version issue - the KJV and the NKJV are translated from exactly the same Greek texts.

    The NKJV footnotes and references other textual options unknown in 1611 but it does not translate from them. The NIV/NASB et al do.

    Sadly, many KJVonly have spread false hate against the NKJV and rumors that it used other texts. Not true. Not at all.

    As for the other, I will let those more familiar with HH give pro/con about his ministry
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    102
    Opening up more cans of worms, Phillip?

    While I have generally thought Hank well grounded, he has become a lightning rod within apologetics and conservatives. There have been charges of plagiarism and financial misdealings (although the lawsuit was settled for legal expenses), disavowment by the family of Walter Martin (the founder of Christian Research Institute) and attacks by D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge, a mentor of his.

    Apparently, the CRI started out to expose cults, and Hank has expanded into outing WoF and even, gasp, Kennedy.

    I really don't know what to make of all the charges and countercharges. (Although I'm tempted to like anyone who tells the truth about Kennedy.)

    My only advice would be to chew the chicken and spit out the bones.

    A sample of the rhetoric:

    KENNEDY DEFENDS GOSPEL IN THE STARS

    HANK LIGHTS INTO KENNEDY

    The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out ...
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    About 7-8 years ago,Dr. D.James Kennedy's org provided a lawyer free to a friend who'd been suspended from her job as a paramedic for witnessing to a patient AT THIS PATIENT'S REQUEST; this medic's "partner" happened to be a homosexual agnostic who was "offended" by what he heard. The Christian medic was exonerated & awarded substantial damages & back pay; the man who caused the problem resigned in disgust.

    Kennedy's only stipulation when he offered the lawyer's services for free was that he mention the case on his radio and TV shows. The lawyer received only 10% of the award instead of the usual 1/3. (For some reason, Dr. Kennedy mentioned this case only once on TV, and far as I know, NEVER on the radio.)

    As for Hanegraaf, I thoroughly disagree with most of his end-time scenario, but this isn't the right forum to discuss that. And I don't trust a man who in this day and age has NINE CHILDREN.

    I believe I'll start a thread in another forum about his end-time stuff.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like Mormonism to me. LOL NINE children? WOW.

    Three adopted kids about killed me. But it has been worth every second.

    Yes, please do expound on his endtime beliefs. I see he is competing with the other batch of end-time novels with an end-time novel of his own. Meet you at the other thread. Thanks for the info.
     
  10. Glory Bound

    Glory Bound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    End times disagreements are common, since there are so many folks who have differing positions. I can't really find real fault with someone on that basis.

    Nine kids is his (and his wife's) business, and not ours. I wouldn't have that many, but if they can deal with the issues then fine.
     
  11. manchester

    manchester
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, so the NKJV (including footnotes) was translated from the best manuscripts available, and many of them were not available to the KJV translators in 1611.
     
  12. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, are you sure about that? Just from a quick look, I noticed Luke 1:35 in the NKJV does not follow "exactly the same Greek texts" as the KJV used.

    -- King James
    Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Those words "of thee" are in the Greek text used by the KJV but they are missing in the Greek text used by the modern versions and the NKJV.

    I'm sure I could find more examples when I have more time to study this issue.
     
  13. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am so glad you think yuou are the final authority, but, sir, will you tell us all why then the nkjv has different translations of the same texts villifying God as equated with the antics of the wicked in Job 24?

    The most venerable Dreary Bob will soon speak!
     
  14. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are all so glad of your ability to "approve" what are the "best" mss and what MSS are not the "best" :rolleyes:
     
  15. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    This might be one of those places where the KJV doesn't follow its text.

    You should be able to find the specifics here
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    102
    Or "to thee" could be implied in the passage and it was a translational decision how to render it.

    The Rheims NT includes "to thee," while Webster's NT renders it "of thee." Young's Linteral Translation the phrase. The ESV, at this point, agrees with the KJV, so I doubt it's really a textual issue.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The phrase "of thee" is not a literal phrase in the original Greek. It is a direction placed there by the translators to indicate where the "holy thing" originates gramatically.

    The Greek reads as such:

    dio (through which thing) kai (also) ho (the, that, this) gennao (begotten) hagion (that which is sacred) kaleo (to be named) huios (child, son) theos (God)
     
  18. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference is not due to a variation in the underlying Greek texts -- there are no variations here that I am aware of.

    I don't know what you are talking about. The textual variations of the Greek text occur in the NT. The Hebrew text would be the same for both the KJV and NKJV in Job 24.

    Andy
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV was more of a revision of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] than it was a new original translation. According to the rules given the translators, the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. These earlier English Bibles are placed on the KJV-only view's line or stream of good Bibles and are claimed to be from the same underlying Greek text as the KJV.

    The 1534 Tyndale's, the 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, and 1568 Bishops' Bibles all do not have
    the "of thee" at Luke 1:35. Would you claim that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles translated from a different Greek text? The 1557 Whittinghams' and 1560 Geneva do have "of thee" which the KJV likely followed at this point.
     
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    aefting: "The difference is not due to a variation in the underlying Greek texts -- there are no variations here that I am aware of."

    The variation *does* exist; Nestle27 reports that EK SOU is read in Lk 1:35 by C* Theta f1 33 pc; Old Latin a c e (r1); the Clementine Vulgate, sy-p, Irenaeus Tertullian Adamantius and Epiphanius.
    Also,this reading appeared in Lachmann's Greek NT.

    Even though it did not appear in Stephens 1550, it must have appeared in at least one pre-1611 printed edition, since Scrivener 1894 included it in his main text underlying the KJV (Scrivener in making that edition clearly stated that he would insert no Greek word or words that lacked pre-1611 printed edition support).

    I think I know where I can find further information, but that will require a library visit.
     

Share This Page

Loading...