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!

Greek Texts

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by IFB Mole, Jun 27, 2007.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 4
  1. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Text Again

    G'day all from the great land downunder,

    This should logically tell a person if you are ending up KJV vs. all others that there are only two streams of text which produced two entirely different Bibles.

    How can you deal with the "text issue" and not end up at one version or another, if you are logically consistent going down the test stream you will end up at one version vs. the rest.:BangHead:

    You cannot have two authorities. You have two different streams of texts, you have the King James and then all the rest. It will either end up one way or another, especially dealing with the text. And this is what we were dealing with.

    I believe the thread started off with a miss quote with no documented source.

    Plus a few other undocumented miss quotes. All I did was try to quote scholarly sources and show that most of what was said, was not an educated thought.

    "When a man wears two watches, he is never sure of what time it is" you cannot have two authorities.

    You either have a “OKJV” position or all the rest. Follow the stream back to the source.

    "... of all the English Bibles now in print only the King James Version is founded upon logic faith. Therefore only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly. Many conservative Christian scholars deny this. THEY TRY TO USE THEIR MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS IN THE SAME WAY THAT BIBLE BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS USE THE KING JAMES VERSION. BUT THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION SOON ASSERTS ITSELF AND MAKES THIS IMPOSSIBLE. FOR THESE MODERN VERSIONS ARE FOUNDED ON A NATURALISTIC NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM WHICH IGNORES OR DENIES THE SPECIAL, PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE. Hence if you use these modern versions, you can never be sure that you have the true New Testament Text. Even worse, you cannot be sure that the original New Testament Scriptures were infallible inspired... The formation of the Textus Receptus, therefore, is a trustworthy reproduction of the infallibly inspired original New Testament text and is authoritative. And so the King James Version and all other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus" (Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study, p 87) see my short bio on Hills previously posted.

    A great Scholar and a free resource.
    http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm for Hills' Work

    Cheers Ehud " Just a Plough Boy":godisgood:
     
    #21 Ehud, Jun 29, 2007
  2. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    This is not true. The editors of the critical text have determined that 95% of the Greek MSS (the Byzantine tradition) are corrupt, and therefore they see their job as determining which MSS are Byzantine so that they may be put aside once and for all from any input into reconstruction of the original text.

    The Alands:

    "A clear determination and exclusion of all eliminandi, that is, discovering which among the great wealth of manuscripts have simply been copied from others with practically no significant differences, and therefore are of no value for reconstructing the original text and its early history. . . . These remaining manuscripts, it should be noted, are not chosen on the basis of any textual theory, since only duplicates and copies fully reproducing the Byzantine text type are excluded" (The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., p. 318).

    Of the 5600 Greek MSS we have, only a few hundred are worth anything according to the prevailing critical methodology, and of those only a few dozen are more than mere fragments. The whole NT is dependent on these few dozen, not 5600 Greek MSS. Of course there are those who claim that the Byzantine MSS have a place in the early history of the text, and those copies that remain today are more or less faithful reproductions of the original text.
     
    #22 Bluefalcon, Jun 29, 2007
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2007
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    That’s where the TR is found and was found. If you are for the preservation of Scripture, then you have no issue with modern translations. You will not attack God’s word by calling it a perversion, or something similar. We all believe in the preservation of God’s word. The question is Do we believe what God said about preservation? It is clear that you do not.

    Hills was simply wrong on this. There is a reason why he is “largely ignored by professional textual critics and translators.” He missed the boat. He has been soundly refuted by a number of people who pointed out his errors.

    When Hills says, “FOR THESE MODERN VERSIONS ARE FOUNDED ON A NATURALISTIC NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM WHICH IGNORES OR DENIES THE SPECIAL, PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE” it is laughable. It is the non KJV side which believes in providential preservation of Scripture rather than miraculous.

    The Bible simply does not teach KJVOnlyism. It is shameful that some people do while pretending to believe God’s word.

    Ehud, Your critical attitude towards the Bible is incompatible with a love for God’s word. God’s word must not be used in vain to support the doctrines of men. Your willingness to do that belies a loyalty to God and his Word and needs reconsideration.
     
    #23 Pastor Larry, Jun 29, 2007
  4. Ehud

    Ehud New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2007
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry

    G,day,

    Help me, what do you mean. What did God say about preservation.

    What do you mean by this? could you explain.

    "Professional textual critic” Def. a man of high intellect who criticizes the word of God.
    Could you show me where Has been soundly refuted, and the errors.

    Cheers Ehud
     
    #24 Ehud, Jun 29, 2007
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    He said he would preserve it. He did not say how, or where, or in what English translation that would be found in. He furthermore gave us in Scripture examples of preservation that are not perfect. So the evidence that God has given us in Scripture is evidence that leads us away from your position.

    Providential preservation means that God has preserved his word through normal manuscript transmission which will include variants from scribal errors. Providential preservation is compatible with a MajT preference, an Eclectic Text preference, and a TR preference. It is incompatible with dogmatism or with claiming only a single English translation is the word of God

    According to your short bio, Hills was one of these.

    Not right off. This subject is so settled it has been a while since I read on it. James White addressed it, I believe, as have D.A. Carson and some others.
     
    #25 Pastor Larry, Jun 29, 2007
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    As thoughtful as your comments are, those who are committed to the KJVO camp would not concede for one second. Despite the historical circumstances that surrounded the TR, there will be no letting up, all the way into eternity.

    When step in to the pulpit with my NASB, I believe I have the preserved Word of God in my hands and the blessings of God, so too the brother with the TNIV.
     
    #26 TCGreek, Jun 29, 2007
  7. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you reject everything that is "in the hands" of the Catholics, does that mean you're pro abortion?
     
    #27 Hope of Glory, Jun 29, 2007
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, you are correct. Having had these discusssion many times (and not very frequently now), I know what the hardness is towards the Word on this.
     
    #28 Pastor Larry, Jun 29, 2007
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I suppose, in the strictest sense of the word "critical" you may have a point. But if by "Critical Text" you mean a text that has been arrived at via the application of the rules of textual criticism, then I would have to disagree. Even Westcott and Hort said that Erasmus did not practice "modern scientific textual criticism" but merely "passed along the commonly received text" (I.E., in Latin, the "textus omnibus receptus").
    It matters not when the Latin term was first applied, the fact remains that Erasmus published the Greek text in common use at that time and was thus "the commonly received text" or, "textus omnibus receptus."
    I agree if we isolate the readings of Aleph and view it as a stand-alone text. However, if you examine the manuscrips available to Erasmus you will note there was a manuscript which he rejected (Codex 1, not to be confused with 1r which is now usually called 2418) for it was too much like the readings of B, which, as you mention below, he received from a friend in the Vatican (Professor Paulus Bombasius).

    As to Aleph being found in a trash bin, that is, unfortunately, an oft repeated falsehood. In fact , . . . "On that day, when walking with the provisor of the convent, he spoke with much regret of his ill-success. Returning from their promenade, Tischendorf accompanied the monk to his room, and there had displayed to him what his companion called a copy of the LXX, which he, the ghostly brother, owned. The MS was wrapped up in a piece of cloth, and on its being unrolled, to the surprise and delight of the critic the very document presented itself which he had given up all hope of seeing." Thus we have Aleph. Not in a trash can, but in a Monk's Scriptorium, wrapped in cloth, and carefully kept in a place of honor and protection. :)
     
    #29 TCassidy, Jun 29, 2007
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "... of all the English Bibles now in print only the King James Version is founded upon logic faith.

    A completely-unfounded, unprovable statement.


    Therefore only the King James Version can be preached authoritatively and studied believingly.

    Absolutely not true.


    Many conservative Christian scholars deny this.

    Of course we deny it because it's FALSE.


    THEY TRY TO USE THEIR MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS IN THE SAME WAY THAT BIBLE BELIEVING BIBLE STUDENTS USE THE KING JAMES VERSION.

    There's no valid reason NOT to.


    BUT THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION SOON ASSERTS ITSELF AND MAKES THIS IMPOSSIBLE. FOR THESE MODERN VERSIONS ARE FOUNDED ON A NATURALISTIC NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM WHICH IGNORES OR DENIES THE SPECIAL, PROVIDENTIAL PRESERVATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE.

    Pure guesswork. You cannot even begin to show any special providence for one valid version over any other.


    Hence if you use these modern versions, you can never be sure that you have the true New Testament Text.

    Why not?


    Even worse, you cannot be sure that the original New Testament Scriptures were infallible inspired... The formation of the Textus Receptus, therefore, is a trustworthy reproduction of the infallibly inspired original New Testament text and is authoritative. And so the King James Version and all other faithful translations of the Textus Receptus"

    Again, completely unprovable.

    Can you please show us any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVOism?

    Hills admitted he believed KJVOism by FAITH, that he couldn't really PROVE it's true. Faith in WHAT? BIBLICAL faith is substance & evidence (Hebrews 11:1) & KJVO has neither. it's entirely man made, without any supporting Scripture & therefore CANNOT BE TRUE.

    Were YOU present when any of the Greek mss were written? If so, perhaps you can name their authors. If not, you're GUESSING.
     
    #30 robycop3, Jun 29, 2007
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Was Prof. Paulus Bombasius the man who wrote the account of how Tischendorf obtained Aleph?
     
    #31 robycop3, Jun 29, 2007
  12. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Greek TR and the Greek Critical Text disagreed each other nearly 10K times. I recommend the TR and aviod the CT.
     
    #32 Askjo, Jun 29, 2007
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Erase - double post.
     
    #33 Askjo, Jun 29, 2007
  14. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what is your authority for this avoidance of the CT? Are these disagreements significant? And why the CT is the culprit? Why not treat the TR as the real culprit?
     
    #34 TCGreek, Jun 29, 2007
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No. He was the friend of Erasmus who sent him the readings as found in Vaticanus, which Erasmus did not see fit to include in his next edition of the TR.
     
    #35 TCassidy, Jun 30, 2007
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would not advocate avoiding the Critical Text (I own several of them including the latest incarnations, UBS 4 and NA 27). However, I do believe the Byzantine textform is superior to the Alexandrian textform so, obviously, where the CT favors the Alexandrian textform (often capriciously, in my opinion) over the better-attested readings of the Byzantine textform, I tend to accept the Byzantine readings as canonical.

    Regarding the significance of the variants, your concern for those variants would depend on your view of scripture. If you believe in a "Conceptual Theory" of inspiration then the variants would be rendered, for the most part, relatively insignificant. However, if you believe, as I do, in a "Verbal and Formal Inspiration" position, believing that not only every word, but even the form of the word (case, number, gender, etc.) was inspired by God, then the variants become more significant.

    As to why, I can only answer that, according to the most logical and objective rules of textual criticism the readings as found in the Byzantine textform can be concluded to be more likely original than those found in the Alexandrian textform. The major problem I have with the CT (in all of its incarnations) is that the rules of "modern scientific textual criticism" as formulated by Griesbach and modified by Hort were, seemingly, designed to point to a preferred text type or manuscript family rather than to objectively discover the reading most likely to be true to the original. That is starting to change, and many of the Byzantine readings banned from the earlier CT editions have found their way into the latest editions, but there is still along way to go.
     
    #36 TCassidy, Jun 30, 2007
  17. TCGreek

    TCGreek New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    I respect your position on the Byzantine text type. Your response is one of the most balance and well thought out one I have read on this forum on the issue. But I still lean toward the Alexandrian type.

    I do believe in plenary inspiration as even extending to vocabulary and morphology, but I even with the Byzantine text variants are present. I do believe in God's providence in preservation, but even with this position, there is the allowance of scribal errors.
     
    #37 TCGreek, Jun 30, 2007
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you! I have since found a short bio of him.
     
    #38 robycop3, Jun 30, 2007
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And, I would presume, that is because of the rules of textual criticism you are using. If we call a yardstick a foot, thirty-six inches still equals a yard and not a foot. :)

    The rules of textual criticism used to compile the CT are, in my opinion, trying to call a yard a foot, and thus missing the mark.

    When the two competing sets of textual critical rules are compared, side by side, and the strengths and weaknesses addressed, in my opinion the rules advocated by those who tend toward a Byzantine textform position (as a result of the application of the rules of textual criticism instead of as a prerequisite) are superior to those adopted by those who favor an Alexandrian textform position (which are, in my opinion, at least for the most part, designed to point toward an already preferred manuscript, textform, or family of manuscripts).
    Of course. I am not advocating the TR-Only position of "Perfect Preservation." That can, quite easily, be proven false. Variants exist in every known manuscript, textform, and text (as far as we can ascertain). But when the competing rules are compared the rules not supported by Greisbach, Lachmann, Westcott, Hort, Metzger, the Aland's et elii, are more logical, reasonable, neutral and unbiased, and, when consistently applied, will produce a more logical, reasonable, neutral and unbiased text. In my studied opinion, of course. :)
     
    #39 TCassidy, Jun 30, 2007
  20. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    The one thing that I find interesting (and important) is that every major text, and AFAIK, every manuscript has exactly the same thing for the doctrine of everlasting salvation, except some add the word "Christ": What must I do to be saved? "Believe [aorist] on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved [indicative]".

    Yet, people still fight over it.
     
    #40 Hope of Glory, Jun 30, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 4
Loading...