Early "Onlies?"

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Pastor_Bob, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I have been studing the text/version debate for some time now. I regularly add books to my library that would benefit me in this study. I purchase books that agree with the position I hold and also those that disagree. My objective in this matter is to understand the issue so fully that I can explain it simply.

    One of my most recent acquisitions is the book The Bible in Translation by Bruce M. Metzger. In this book, he makes the following statements concerning the early Christians:

    I see striking similarities between the views of these first century Christians and those of the onlies today. Both believe(d) that their respective "translation" was/is divinely inspired. They even went so far as to feel that their "translation" was more accurate than the original language text. (Ruckman, Gipp, et al.)

    Also, as the original language becomes more and more obsolete and unlearned, the more they held to their translations as the final authority.

    The similarity here is obvious - these early Christians, it seems, would rather translate the Old Testament for Syriac-speaking Christians from their trusted translation rather than from the originals.

    Metzger also reveals that the Old Testament translated into Latin was translated the same way.
    I am not endorsing the positions presented here, nor did Metzger present them in this light. I simply found the comparisons interesting.

    My question for discussion is this: Do these similarities indicate that a precedent has been set by the early Christians making it acceptable to elevate a translation/version to the position that they did in the first century and that Christians for the past few centuries have done?
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Those are interesting comparisons. I too have that book and found it excellent reading.

    The question I would have is what did the Jews use if they did not use the LXX and didn't know Hebrew either?
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    According to Metzger, the Septuagint was translated primarliy for the Jews in Alexandria. He states, "Many members of this community had forgotten their Hebrew or let it grow rusty and spoke only the common Greek of the Mediterranean world. But they remained Jews and wanted to understand the ancient Scriptures..."

    When a people loses the ability to read and/or understand the original language, it is very necessary to have a translation in their language so that they might still know the Scriptures. That is why it is so important to have a translation that is based on reliable texts and correctly represents the originals.

    I do not agree with much of Metzger's conclusions, but you cannot deny that he is an expert in the field of ancient manuscript evidence and very educated in the history of Bible translations. I read him for his factual information on these topics rather than for his preference on texts and versions, both of which I cannot agree with.

    [ April 07, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Such is the case for Doug Kutilek or Gary Hudson. Many a KJVO disagrees with them, but they cannot refute what K&H says are facts.

    I often agree with what a KJVO says - until he/she gets to that man-made myth...
     
  5. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    This is the very premise of this thread. Do today's KJVOs have a precedent that was set in the first century?
     
  6. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has always been a group of Bible believing Christians that rejected "bibles"(214 + conflicting authorities now) from Papal mss.,always will..

    They knew a snake when they saw one then,and still do today...and have been growing in number since.Most Bible relativist/rationalist refuse to accept that fact;the phrase,"willful ignorance" comes to mind.

    The premice of "KJBO is a recent thing" is baloney...

    I have several quotes that refute that..
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the very premise of this thread. Do today's KJVOs have a precedent that was set in the first century? </font>[/QUOTE]Probably, Satan seems to repackage his tricks and false doctrines rather than creating completely new ones. One way to take God's Word from His people is to convince Christians that only "one" version is correct... of course in due time that version will no longer be understandable due to changes in language. Think of the Latin Vulgate Onlyism of the RCC. It prevented most people from reading the scriptures for themselves for hundreds of years.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Anti-Alexandrian, the entire MODERN KJVO myth has sprung up since 1930. There has been an occasional booster for just about every English BV ever made, and there seems to have been more for the AV/KJV because it's been the commonest version and the most recent until modern times. The making of the modern versions has spawned the modern KJVO monster, as the earlier ones had fewer versions to bash.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,133
    Likes Received:
    320
    Define recent please.
    Any from the Scripture?

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...