Have we "modern-versioners" won?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Spoudazo, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    . . .'cause the boards are quiet! :eek:

    [​IMG]

    Regarding the topic of this part of the board, what has everyone been studying lately?
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "won" in this debate, as every casualty is a Christian brother.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats because I am not at my own home, and do not have my study books at hand!

    No, there is no victory for you moderns, only s few days to try to have some solid facts for when I return early next week!

    While I do use the KJV/NKJV, I am not an "only" person, as I am aware of the faults both these versions have, as I comapre them to the various Greek textx that I have. Yet these is getting away from the fact, that the textual basis for the KJV is far superior to any other version. I am waiting to be proved wrong by you guys on this. Further, as I have already said before, my TC is under the scholarship of Scrivener and Burgon, two men who are of the highest order in the field of TC!
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dean Burgon believed that the clause "raise the dead" at Matthew 10:8 did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (REVISION REVISED, p. 108). Do you agree with Dean Burgon about this clause?

    Scrivener thought that "faith" for "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 was a "mere oversight of our [KJV] translators" (AUTHORIZED EDITION, p. 247). In his 1873 Cambridge edition of the KJV, Scrivener
    put "profession of our hope" in the text instead
    of "profession of our faith." Do you agree with
    Scrivener about Hebrews 10:23? What is your view
    of Scrivener's 1873 edition of the KJV?

    This 1873 KJV has "thy mercy's sake" (Ps. 6:4, 31:16, 44:26) for the 1769 edition's "thy mercies' sake," "fathers' house" for "father's house" (1 Chron. 7:2, Ezra 2:59, Neh. 7:61),
    "heart's lust" for "hearts' lust" (Ps. 81:12),
    "Adder's poison" for "adders' poison" (Ps. 140:3), "fools' back" for "fool's back" (Prov. 26:3), "merchant's ships" for "merchants' ships" (Prov. 31:14), "potter's clay" for "potters' clay" (Dan. 2:41), and "oaths' sake" for "oath's sake" (Matt. 14:9, Mark 6:16).
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This kind of thread does nothing to help fellowship. There are no "winners" in this divisive issue.

    The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues related to Bible versions and translations, not to gloat over supposed "victories."

    [ March 25, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...