conflicting KJV-only claims

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In one of his books, D. A. Waite noted that he "found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today" (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 53).

    In another of his books, D. A. Waite claimed that in "changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from "towards" to "toward" are included "you get 413 words in all" (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his "only 421 translational changes" count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of "only 435 changes" (p. 116). In this same book, he also states that "there are only 136 differences to the sound" (p. 80).

    Which of these counts [136, 413, 421, 435] does Waite actually stand behind? Does his use of words such as "in all" and "only" suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all the changes?

    Waite even recommended to others that they use his count when he wrote: "You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 244). Waite was so confident in his count that he indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they "would get the same results" (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION, p. 93).

    To top it off, in his study and comparison, Waite claimed that he took "these same examples" listed by Scrivener in his book (CENTRAL SEMINARY, p. 78). How does Waite explain that over 200 of Scrivener's examples in his appendixes A and C are missing from his list?
    If Waite did what he stated, it would be expected that there would be at least 200 more changes in his list. That does not even include other examples that can be found in the text of Scrivener's book.

    Has Waite contradicted his own claim that he is "not misinforming anyone around this country" in his writing or speaking (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION, p. 31)? Based on his own statement that he took the "same examples" listed by Scrivener, is it possible that he has known for 20 years that his count is misinformation?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dr. Waite apparently reserves the right to classify his perceived differences as "substantial", "moderate", "innocuous", according to whether it's time for him to write a new article or not. "Wisdom is justified of her children".
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hmmm...No KJVO response. Typical...
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Reading Waite or Cloud or Ruckman or Riplinger is, one will find quickly, a collosal waste of time.

    These schizmatic writers have become gods to themselves and are not in touch with reality . . or truth.
     
  5. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    From this I take it that you are in touch with reality or truth, and we who support the KJV are not? That is what I would call a cheap shot!
     
  6. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob

    I invite you to answer my internal evidence for the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7, which is on another thread.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    All I can say, Icthus, is that you get with Logos, who's doing a comparison between the AV 1611 & the 1769 Edition, find out what criteria he's using to establish a standard for what makes up a "difference", & make your OWN comparison.

    As for the internal "evidence" for 1 John 5:7, you're presenting but one biased view. Many scholars present an equally-biased-to-the-opposite-side opposing view. It's same as arguing whether a 12 oz. cup containing 6 oz of fluid is half-empty or half-full when neither side knows who put the fluid into the cup and for what purpose. This discussion has been going on for generations, and is no closer to resolution than it was in the beginning. What REALITY IS, is that two different sets of translators each made a Bible version. One group was careful not to OMIT anything, while the other group was careful not to ADD anything.
     
  8. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus I notice you make a big deal about supporting the KJV and also about attacking the NIV in another thread. I also notice you attend Childs Hill Baptist church. Is this the Childs Hill in Childs hill Cricklewood? If so, doesn't Pastor Brady use the NIV? Have you given him your opinion that he is preaching from a "paraphrase" instead of a translation?. Just curious.
     
  9. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3 Wrote:

    As for the internal "evidence" for 1 John 5:7, you're presenting but one biased view. Many scholars present an equally-biased-to-the-opposite-side opposing view. It's same as arguing whether a 12 oz. cup containing 6 oz of fluid is half-empty or half-full when neither side knows who put the fluid into the cup and for what purpose. This discussion has been going on for generations, and is no closer to resolution than it was in the beginning. What REALITY IS, is that two different sets of translators each made a Bible version. One group was careful not to OMIT anything, while the other group was careful not to ADD anything.

    I am sorry, but you reasoning is incorrect. None of the works that I have read on the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:6-10, have ever shown why John would have changed to use the masculine gender, whereas the grammer would have required him to use the neuter, which would cause no problems! Even those who reject the verse on the basis of a lack of external manuscript evidence, admid that the Greek grammar requires that the words be included. Thus we have Bishop Thomas Middleton (1769-1822), in his famous. "The Doctrine of the Greek Article", admit that the presence of the Greek article in verse eight, "TO hen", required that "hen" (one) were used in a verse privious to this. But, where else in verses 1-6 does "hen" appear, except in the disputed verse seven?

    Its one thing to object to a reading, but quite another to have solid evidence to back up your claim.

    Robycop3, do you know of any scholar who has answered the grammatical problems caused with the use of the masculine. I mean, not just someone who is guessing, but factual?
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, this is the same Church. I have spoken to Pastor Brady about this, and he is of the opinion that the NIV is ok. I no longer attend there, as I feel that he has compromised in that he accepts a translation based on inferior texts!
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Internal evidence? There is no support in the Greek for this spurious text. How can there be "evidence"?

    I warned you. Don't read these guys. Please. You will only hurt yourself!
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am surprised at your hollow answer! You obviously have not read any of my posts on the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:6-8! If you care to do so, you will see that without the disputed words in verse seven, what remains for verses seven and eight leave us with unsolvable problems with the Greek grammar!

    Anyone who is aware of Greek grammar, will have to admit that the language used by John, without verse seven, is in violation of the rules of grammar!
     
  13. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Icthus: Robycop3, do you know of any scholar who has answered the grammatical problems caused with the use of the masculine. I mean, not just someone who is guessing, but factual?


    Here are but two small example:
    http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html

    http://www.nehemiahswall.org/Theological/comma.html

    I found these examples with about a 30-second search. If I were to do a more in-depth search, I'd turn up many more.

    I'm not a Greek reader, but I do have a rudimentary knowledge of it. However, I'm no slouch at history and current events, and I believe you know as well as I do, that the "Comma" argument is still going strong.

    Again, I believe that its inclusion or exclusion is decided by the translators of any given BV.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Back to the subject of this thread, Logos...

    It would be interesting to see the counts if both you and Dr. Waite were to use the SAME CRITERIA for determining differences besides spelling & punctuation. It appears Dr. Waite's standards are a little lower than yours.
     
  15. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi neither of the links you refer to actually "deal" with the Greek grammar. The remarks from the first link, shows that they don't have a clue as to the problems caused without verse seven! They say:

    "7 uses the masculine 'hoy marturountes,' but 8 has pneuma, hudor, and aima, all neuter." The commentaries note this as well, but do not consider it problematic. The use of neuter for all three is taken as a constraint of the grammar, because the list has one personal element (spirit) and two impersonal elements (water, blood)."

    The commentaries referred to me not "consider" the Greek grammar to be a problem, is nonsense. Their argument shows their lack of knowledge of Greek grammar. It is NOT the use of the neuter that is the problem, but the masculine gender! the three neuter nouns are referred to in the masculine, "tres eisin hoi marturountes"; whereas the "attraction of gender" rule in Greek grammar, would require John to have written: "tria eisi ta marturounta", as he did for the SAME three neuter nouns in verse six!

    Neither of the links you have given deal with this!
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I attempted to use the same criteria that Waite used for determining differences. Waite just overlooked or failed to list a large number of differences that exist based on his own criteria.
     
  17. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Waite has done some terrible research in his works. Being a Dr. he ought to know better. Cloud is just lemming of Waite.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, Ichthus, it's just guesswork, w/o John here to tell us, or without a plethora of other writings of his to firmly establish his writing style.

    Without solid evidence, we must go with what we DO have...a vast lack of ms support for the verse. However, it still boils down to the individual translators' take.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Waite also "selectively" quotes Burgon in his "Dean Burgon Society". He totally ignores Burgon's rather scathing comments about the Textus Receptus.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Waite wrote: "I, at least, am not misinforming anyone around this country, either from the pulpit of my 'Bible for Today Baptist Church'
    or in print or on my radio broadcasts in this country or by short wave around the world. I am simply standing for the truth--expounding what the Bible declares, presenting the evidence regarding Bible texts and translations, and seeking to answer those who are deserting and/or attacking the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. There is not a single person associated with THE MIND OF MAN, including Bob Jones III, that has ever been able to point to me some proven MIS-INFORMATION that I have given out" (FUNDAMENTALIST MIS-INFORMATION ON BIBLE VERSIONS, p. 31).
     

Share This Page

Loading...