Is using newer versions the same as accepting alien baptism?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by The Parson, Feb 3, 2016.

  1. The Parson

    The Parson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, it's a fair question. I mentioned something in another thread as follows:

    I believe the main argument was gender roles, which until just over the past century, wasn't an issue at all. Where some are arguing that the NIV was making those roles sort of disappear. Scripturally established for centuries and then all of sudden, an issue that is just one of a number of dividing lines we have now that didn't really exist before.

    So what has alien baptism got to do with the new versions? Well, lets look at the editors and the sources of the manuscripts used in creating these copyrighted books for starters. Hey, you can start with Origen or Westcott and Hort, Virginia Mollenkott, etc., if you want, doesn't matter to me. What did they believe? Was there a protestant or Roman catholic agenda placed in them? But hey, I'm one of those crazy KJV, conspiracy suspicious, old ways type of guys. What else would you expect me to ask about the subject?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Why would we? None of them had anything to do with either the choice of textforms or the actual translations themselves.
    The Church of Rome did not support the Greek textforms used in English translations. The Church of Rome believed only the Latin textform was inspired and inerrant. Every RCC translation from the Rheims to the New American Bible was Latin based.
    Well, since you admit to being a KJVO I wouldn't expect any intelligent questions from you on this or any other subject. :(
     
  3. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    Really? Not Westcott and Hort?
     
  4. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139
    I too am one of those crazy King James only guys brother! In fact, everyone in my church is which is the norm for a Primitive Baptist church. While of course I recognize it is a translation, not an original Greek manuscript, the primary reason for my position of using the King James comes from Psalm 12:6-7, "6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" The King James Bible is by far the best selling and published book of all human history, thus if it wasn't an accurate translation, I do not see how one can say God's word was "preserve(d)... for ever". The King James is also one of if not the most literal translation in English.

    From a textual argument standpoint, I believe the manuscripts the King James translators relied heavily on, the "Received Text", is the best manuscripts because #1 they represent the majority of ancient manuscripts # 2These ancient manuscripts were used consistently and with out interruption by God's believing people and #3 these manuscripts were never lost to the "sea of time". They were continually copied and recopied and show signs of being worn from use, thus indicating the confidence God's people placed in them.

    On the other hand, many of modern version translations relied heavily on manuscripts are few and represent the minority of witnesses, have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt , an area known for false teaching, are in pristine condition, indicating they were never used by God's people.
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    No. Contrary to popular opinion the ERV, the only translation committee either man was on, used the Greek text of Edwin Palmer to revise the KJV. :)
     
    #5 TCassidy, Feb 3, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    The problem is that even the KJV translators disagree with you. They make it very clear in the marginal note in the 1611 edition of the KJV that the "them" in verse 7 refers to the "poor and needy" of verse 5 and not the "words" of verse 6.

    The suffix eem in Psalm 12:7 refers to the miserable and poor; the suffix ennu in Psa_12:7 (him, not: us, which would be pointed תצרֵנוּ, and more especially since it is not preceded by תִשְׁמְרֵנוּ) refers back to the man who yearns for deliverance mentioned in the divine utterance, Psalm 12:5. The “preserving for ever” is so constant, that neither now nor at any future time will they succumb to this generation.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139
    Hi Brother,

    There are plenty of other verses besides that one that contain the same promise of preservation, The Lord Himself proclaimed the reality of the providential preservation of the Scriptures of both Testaments during His life on earth: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17). He thus declared that the Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text.

    Similarly, in His discourse on last things, the Lord assures His disciples that His promises would not only certainly be fulfilled but also remain available for the comfort of His people during that troubled period which shall precede His Second Coming. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).

    One knows that the Textus Receptus is the true New Testament text through the logic of faith Since faith comes from the hearing of the Word of God (Romans 10:17), the Word of God will be displayed by the Scriptural principles of preservation.

    Do you really believe God would will that the best selling and published book of all time that is supposed to be the word of God would be subject to poor translation to deceive His elect people for hundreds of years until "accurate" translations were later published?
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    I am not now nor have I ever questioned the doctrine of preservation.
    A proponent of the Alexandrian textform could make the same claim. Both are subjective.

    But the bible is our supreme and final authority, and the bible says we can know the holy scriptures because they "are able to make thee wise unto salvation." Any bible that is able to "make thee wise unto salvation" is, according to the bible itself, the "holy scriptures." So, unless you are proposing the vile heresy that only the KJV can result in a person's salvation your own evidence proves your position to be wrong.
    Can you please quote where I have ever made such an assertion?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139
    Hi again brother,

    I guess I may have misunderstood your position, I thought your position was that the King James is not the most accurate translation, thus those who use it only are making an error, in which case I would view that as a rejection of the principle of the preservation of the word of God. I came to that conclusion because you attacked the verse I cited to support preservation and you also attacked the other brother if he was KJV only adherent, if that is not your position I do apologize. If you could please perhaps reply and better clarify what you meant by attacking that brother if he was a KJV only adherent? I was not aware that all KJV only adherants maintain salvation can only be obtained through that version. Every brother and sister I know in all the churches I am associated with use the King James only in sermons and to read at church ( and I would imagine at home for their personal study too for the most part), but none of them maintain such a belief.

    More specifically to your question as to if I believe the KJV only can result in "a person's salvation", I assume you mean by salvation "born again". If so, I don't believe in gospel regeneration, thus I don't believe any translation can make one "born again", but only a sovereign quickening independent of means including the preached word.

    From time to time, I do consult other translations, especially due to some of the archaic words in the King James. I do not agree with how every word was translated in the King James. For example, as you yourself know from a prior exchange we had on a different thread, I do not agree how the King James translated the verse in John 3 as "born again", rather than "born from above". (I know brother you are in agreement with the King James translators on that particular word of the verse).

    What version do you prefer and use the most brother?
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    The KJV needs to be put out to pasture. It has served its purpose in the past. Some folks can still profit from its pages today. But it's really passe.

    It's interesting how some KJVO folks speak of not departing from the Old Paths. The newer translations are based on older texts whereas the KJV is based on an eclectic mix of newer texts.
     
  11. The Parson

    The Parson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bee's Knees Louise, What am I doing here.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Non-sequitur. There is no connection between your assertion and your conclusion.

    I don't believe the KJV is the most accurate English version, at least not for those whose primary language is early 21st century English.

    But there is no way that position can logically be linked to denying the bible doctrine of preservation of the scriptures.

    I did not attack the verse you cited. I corrected your failure to understand what that verse is really saying, and what the KJV translators themselves said it meant.

    And I don't know what you are talking about when you say I attacked another KJV only brother.

    I am not aware of any attack on a KJV only brother. Could you be more specific? Give me a thread and post number. Thanks.
    Then you are forced to believe all the modern versions are also the preserved word of God in English because they are all "able to make thee wise unto salvation." :)

    So are you saying you believe the bible is wrong when it says the "holy scriptures" are "able to make thee wise unto salvation?"

    That is a good place to start. :)
    As I believe the Byzantine Textform is superior to the Alexandrian Textform (and we can go into why I believe that in another venue) I prefer English bibles translated from representatives of that Textform. That would include:

    The Tyndale Bible of 1525 - 1534.
    The Coverdale (Great) Bible of 1535. (First Authorized Version in English.)
    The Matthews Bible of 1537.
    The Cranmer Bible of 1539.
    The Geneva Bible of 1560.
    The Bishops Bible of 1568. (The Authorized Version prior to the KJV.)

    And of those still in print:

    The King James Version.
    The New King James Version.

    I preach from the KJV. I teach from the NKJV. And I read and study the NKJV in my personal life.
     
  13. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139
    The argument against this is the older manuscripts used by the newer version's survived because they weren't considered any good, thus they weren't used very often.

    Also regarding the "older manuscripts" relied upon by the newer versions, "There are a few other old manuscripts, even including fragmentary Greek papyri, whose textual character seems to conform more to the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus than to the Textus Receptus. However, these all have been traced (by liberal and conservative scholars alike) to a probable source in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 2nd or 3rd century. The most influential man among the "intellectual" community of Alexandria was the learned Origen, and it is believed by many that he was largely instrumental in developing the so-called "Alexandrian" text of the New Testament (of which the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are representative), in contrast to the "Byzantine" text, from which the Textus Receptus has largely come."

    " With all his immense learning and zeal, however, Origen was a heretic. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he felt constrained to harmonize Christianity with pagan philosophy, especially that of Plato and the Stoics. This led him into excessive allegorization of Scripture, especially Genesis, and into denigrating the actual historical records of the Bible, even that of the bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the literal creation of the world."

    The King James relies on the Textus Receptus manuscripts, "For obvious reasons, the Textus Receptus is also referred to as the "Majority Text" since the majority (95% or more) of existing manuscripts support this reading. These extant manuscripts were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

    The NASB, the NIV, the Jehovah's Witness bible ("New World Translation"), and most modern translations and paraphrases use the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts, including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian Codex, Parisian Codex, and Codex Bezae.

    For obvious reasons, this text is referred to as the "Minority Texts." Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for their Greek Text, which is particularly odd, considering the fact that these two codices contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone."

    Source (http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/manuscripts.html/ )
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    That may not be entirely accurate. The oldest manuscripts do not necessarily contain the oldest readings and the oldest readings are not necessarily found in the oldest manuscripts.

    Not to mention that distinctively Byzantine readings have been found which pre-date the "oldest and best" manuscripts, Aleph and B.

    And, or course, all extant manuscripts are eclectic to some degree or another. :)
     
  15. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139

    Hi Brother TCassidy,

    You asked in what post and quote did you attack a King James only brother, the quote is above and it is from post 2 of this thread.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Please elaborate --it sounds contradictory.
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Not a single English version presently in print uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text. The NASB is based on the 23rd edition of the Nestle text (NA 23). The NIV is based on the First and Second Editions of the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (UBS 1 & 2). As for the New World Translation, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort was consulted but the committee also referred to the Novum Testamentum Graece (18th edition, 1948) and to works by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies' text (1975) and the Nestle-Aland text (1979) were used to update the footnotes in the 1984 version.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Why do you consider that an attack? He asked a question. Based on his self-admitted ignorance I would not expect an intelligent answer to a question posed to him. That is not an attack. That is a fact. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. BrotherJoseph

    BrotherJoseph
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    139
    Elder Gilbert Beebe on this verse, " But our text says they are able to make thee (Timothy) wise unto salvation. But how, through the reading or studying of them? No, certainly not. Thousands had read and studied them, and had become as familiar with them as Timothy or Saul, but died in their sins. Paul does not say they were able, but which are able. Timothy, at the time this address was made to him, was manifestly a subject of saving grace, and Paul was persuaded that the faith which had dwelt in his mother and grandmother, dwelt in Timothy also. Being now a christian, having the faith of God’s elect, born of God, and taught of the Spirit, those Scriptures which he had only before known in their letter, and which had had no power to give him the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, are now, in his quickened, regenerated state, able to— to do what? To save him from the perdition of ungodly men, from the curse of the law, or from the wrath of God? By no means. From all these he was already saved, as Paul had affirmed in the first chapter, and ninth verse, of this epistle, was already accomplished. “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” What then are the Scriptures able to do for a saved, called, justified and divinely instructed Timothy? They are able to make thee wise unto salvation, that is, to that salvation in which he now stood, to enlighten his spiritual vision in more fully comprehending that glorious plan of grace and salvation in which he with all the election of grace was embraced, and thus save him from being like children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. The salvation unto which the Scriptures are now able to save thee (Timothy), is fully expressed in the next verse: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” They are not designed that the man of the world may be perfect, but the profit is unto the man of God, in furnishing him to all good works" http://www.asweetsavor.info/egb/2tim3_15.php

    I didn't know you believe in gospel regeneration brother, do you? I thought you believed regeneration must precede faith, am I wrong? As concerning if the gospel itself brings immortality, scripture already answered that, " who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:" (2 Timothy 1:10), Notice brother it says the gospel brings "immortality to light" it does not say that the gospel "brings immortality". What is the difference? If I turn a light on in a room it only illuminates and makes visible to a person that which was already in the room, in the same way this is what the gospel does to those who believe it. Also, what about Cornelius brother, was he born again before or after the gospel preacher Peter arrived?

    God bless,

    Brother Joe
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa. (Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1881), 2:45.)

    Hort claimed a total absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century AD. Hort considered this argument to "prove" that readings found exclusively in later Byzantine manuscripts had no known early support and therefore absolutely could not have existed prior to AD 350. Hort was extremely adamant on this point.

    However, over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers. (Hort emphatically maintained that, were this principle overthrown, his entire hypothesis would have been demolished).

    In view of the transmissional history suggested, the fallacy of the "older is necessarily better" argument should already have been made clear. Going beyond the contents of the earliest manuscripts, however, the editors would stress (following Burgon and many other critics) that it is not the age of the manuscript itself, but the quality and antiquity of the text it contains which is the real item of value.

    Most early manuscripts in existence today have been affected by the uncontrolled nature of textual transmission which prevailed in their local areas, as well as by the persecutions which came continually against the church. The whole matter of early copying practices is hypothetical, regardless of which textual theory one prefers. We know nothing beyond what can be deduced from what survives. In the early papyri, we may have only personal copies, and not those which were generally used by the churches themselves. Also, the papyri all come from a single geographic area, and reflect a good deal of corruption, both accidental and deliberate. One should not summarily question the integrity of all early manuscripts because of the character of this limited sample from Egypt.

    There is good reason to presume that most early copies -- many made directly from the autographs themselves -- would have been as accurate as ordinary care would humanly permit, especially for Holy Writ. Church sources in particular would not knowingly send forth what they would have considered "defective" copies. At least the first and second copying generations should have been generally secure. Responsible scribes would presumably take general care with their sacred deposits.

    Although a healthy respect for the sacred text generally prevailed, keeping corruption to a minimum, even the orthodox sometimes took the opportunity to alter the text, under the supposition that they were "improving" or "restoring" the text with their corrections. Heretical tampering did occur, as witnessed by the work of Tatian and Marcion, but the church as a whole, and especially its leaders and theologians, were keen watchdogs against such deliberately-perverted manuscripts. It is not without significance that today we know of Marcion's heretical text only from citations in the Church Fathers, and the heretic Tatian's Diatessaron is seen in but one Greek manuscript fragment, despite its early widespread popularity even among the orthodox.

    Yet, even though heretical alterations were not tolerated, nowhere in the early Fathers do we find any indication that in those early centuries a uniformity of text was a concern or demand. Had common scribal alteration been a concern, the Fathers would have spoken out as strongly as they did against the theology and text of the heretics. The evidence of the existing early manuscripts as well as the Patristic quotations of Scripture is plain in this regard. The manuscript text in the earliest centuries had been corrupted to a degree, chiefly through the agency of common orthodox Christians. The Fathers, like all other Christians, had to make do with the manuscripts currently available. They did not actively seek to "restore" the autograph form of that text; such was not their purpose.

    The text found in the manuscripts of the second and third centuries, therefore, is in many cases corrupt, and to that extent somewhat removed from the autograph text. Not all manuscripts showed the same degree of corruption, however, as even the early papyri demonstrate. Only the continual process of manuscript comparison and cross-correction as practiced throughout the centuries would succeed in weeding out early scribal corruption and conflicting variant readings. The same process would later keep the vagaries of individual Byzantine-era scribes in check.

    Dr. Maurice Robinson, Senior Professor of New Testament Greek, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

    (In the interests of full disclosure I consider Dr. Robinson a friend and fellow laborer in the Vineyard of our Lord.)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page

Loading...