1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

From The Mind Of God To The Mind Of Man

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Mar 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    TCassidy, you missed my point. Read my comment below!

    Correct.

    TCassidy, between Erasmus 1516 text and Beza 1598 text was 82 years LATER. Beza published 4 editions of Stephanus in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. No information said that Beza revised Erasmus.

    Was the New Testament in the KJV based on the 1516 text of Erasmus? Was the New Testament in the KJV based on the 1598 text of Beza? Which one do you believe?
     
    #21 Askjo, Apr 8, 2006
  2. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh no! My answer to you is to find my answer to TCassidy.
     
    #22 Askjo, Apr 8, 2006
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <Sigh>No, Beza did not publish any editions of the text of Stephanus. The last edition of Stephanus was published in 1551. In 1565 Beza published a text based on the Stephanus text of 1551 but with substantial input from Codex Bezae, a 6th century Western Uncial. In 1575 Bezae edited his 1565 edition and republished it. In 1582 he edited again this time using input from Codex Claromontanus, another 6th century Western Uncial containing the Epistles of Paul through Hebrews.

    And Beza published 9 editions, not 4. 1565, 1575, 1582, 1589, 1598, 1600, 1602, 1603, and 1604.

    Beza revised Stephanus who revised Erasmus, just as I said. To claim that any edition of Beza was not a revision of the original work of Erasmus is simply wrong. To try to claim that Beza's work was his own and not based on the TRs which came before is simply ignorant.
    It is not a question of what I believe, but rather a question of fact. About 85% of the KJV follows Tyndale which is based on the 1522 edition of Erasmus (and, of course, the KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible which was a revision of the Matthews Bible which was a revision of the Tyndale Bible). When the KJV departs from Tyndale it sometimes follows the 1550/1551 editions of Stephanus and at other places follows the 1598 edition of Beza. At some places it follows the 1519 German translation of Martin Luther, which was based on the 1519 edition of Erasmus. And at some places doesn't follow any of them. To think that the KJV follows any single edition of the TR is to display a terrible ignorance of the facts of how the KJV came into being.
     
    #23 TCassidy, Apr 8, 2006
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct.
    See the bold. That is correct. My previous posts are clear.
     
    #24 Askjo, Apr 8, 2006
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Those who holler about the eclectic nature of newer versions generally ignore the fact that the AV translators used an eclectic mix of texts. Kowabunga!
     
    #25 robycop3, Apr 8, 2006
  6. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Askjo said:

    No information said that Beza revised Erasmus.

    You seem to be having some trouble. Try grasping at some of these:

    [​IMG]

    No one seriously claims that Beza's text wasn't Erasmian.
     
    #26 Ransom, Apr 10, 2006
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It seems that Askjo is attempting to do just that.
     
    #27 Scott J, Apr 11, 2006
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least they had sense enough to use the RIGHT "mix" of texts..Boo Ya!!!
     
    #28 Anti-Alexandrian, Apr 11, 2006
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    At least they had sense enough to use the RIGHT "mix" of texts..Boo Ya!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Proof?
     
    #29 robycop3, Apr 11, 2006
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Chapter 7 was not credited to one man -- it was done by committee . It is called " The Changing King James Version . "

    At least four extensive revisions led to the 1769 edition still in use today . Comparisons are made easier by use of the 1611 edition in modern Roman typeface produced by Thomas Nelson Publishers . Estus Pirkle [ doncha' love that name !] has published almost seven hundered pages comparing the changes .( 148)

    ...the 1611 KJV had over eight thousand marginal notes . ( 149 )

    ...at least 6,637 in the Old Testament , 767 in the New Testament ...( 150 )

    Were the translators reasonably consistent in their application of italics to the text of Scripture ? Unfortunately , according to Scrivener , the answer would have to be " No ! "...inconsistencies occur in the same expressions in parallel passages , on the same page , and even at times in the same verse .( 151
    )

    ... over four thousand words in the King James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English dictionaries today . ( 153 )

    In one of the London Bibles of 1629 , we have the first KJV published without the Apocrypha .( 158 )

    [ There was , in 1638 ] a revision by some of the survivors of the original body of translators . ( 158 )

    [ The 1762 revision by Thomas Paris ] came to be known as the Standard Edition . ( 160 )

    In fact , there are over four thousand words in the 1611 edition that have dropped out of Blayney's revision [ of 1769 ]. ( 160 )

    It is overly simplistic to assume that we hold a 1611 KJV in our hand [ these days ] . ( 161 )
     
    #30 Rippon, Apr 12, 2006
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Chapter 8 is by William H.Smallman . It is called " Printed Greek Texts . "

    Note that this publication and designation as " Textus Receptus " occurred over twenty years after the initial publication of the King James Version . ( 170 )

    [Dean John William Burgon wrote ] Once for all , we request it may be clearly understood that we do not , by any means , claim perfection for the Received Text . We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject . Again and again we shall have occasion to point out ... that the Textus Receptus needs correction . ( The Revision Revised , p.21,note 2. In original , but not in Green's condensation .) (182 )
     
    #31 Rippon, Apr 13, 2006
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Chapter 9 is by J.Drew Conley . It's called " English Versions Since 1880 ."

    In this chapter he summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of various English translations for more than the last 100 years .

    In discussing the NIV he says the translators : dropped the archaic pronouns referring to God , along with the old verb forms that went with them because the original languages do not make such a distinction ( nor does the English of the KJV ) . ( 202 )

    He quotes a part of the preface to the NRSV which I think is reasonable : God's " message must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear , or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning ; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today . " ( 204 )

    Sadly , much of the translation debate today has diverted the minds and hearts of God's people from understanding and submitting to the very Scriptures they are trying to defend ... From a pastor's perspective , the sin of disobeying the Scripture we already understood has done greater damage than the worst of translations . ( 208 )
     
    #32 Rippon, Apr 14, 2006
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read the detail before you quoted above and found additional quotation:
    This detail talked about 75,000 changes on between 1611 KJV and 1769 KJV. What about spelling and punctuation? Only 136 variations to the ear. 421 included same words sounding slightly different. Look at 136 words out of nearly 800,000 words in the KJV. What percent is this? It is .00017%. I do not see how Dr. Simmons gave right comment.
     
    #33 Askjo, Apr 14, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...