KJVOnly and the Textual issue

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Michael D. Edwards, Apr 19, 2002.

  1. Michael D. Edwards

    Michael D. Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2002
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello:

    I'm trying to pick up where we left off on the thread that was closed. My whole point for my posts on that thread was to hint at the idea that many KJVOnly supporters (a variety of types) hold that since the text underlying it is "pure" that it is better. I just think that many of the KJVOnly supporters forget that the greek-hebrew-aramaic texts that they translate from are not just some perfect copy that has always been since the time of the apostles, otherwise there would not even be a debate! But, since not all manuscripts agree, it's just not as strong of a reason to be KJVOnly.

    I had one person (obviously uninformed) show me a copy of their parallel KJV. It had the text of the KJV on one side and then the original language on the other with the english in small print above it). They then go on to explain how the KJV obviously translated it perfectly, when you compared that greek text to the NIV, et.al. However, that argument was ludicrous for a couple reasons.

    1. The text of course matches the KJV since all the original language there is just the choice in original readings that the translators chose!

    2. You can't begin an argument against modern versions by assuming the conclusion (circular reasoning). The KJV0=Word of God therefore all others do not = the Word of God.

    So, while much could be discussed on the issue of texts, the KJV translators themsevles were textual critics of some sort, since they had to pick and choose readings. Not only that, but teh original edition contained over 30,000 marginal references, many with optional readings, much like we see in the NIV or NASB today.

    Anyway, don't realy want to debate the topic, only to clear up what I was saying that I think got missed. I do NOT support modern versions because I am under the impression that the underlying texts and manuscript copies agree 100%, but many in the camp of KJVOnly I think are under that impression. I have no official statistic, just those I've had personal contact with.

    p.s. I used to be KJV Only. I went as far as to burn other versions. Praise God he rescued me from THAT.

    In Christ
    Michael
     
  2. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you might be the first person I have ever heard of who actually changed sides on this issue.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm another one Pete. See, God still does great and mighty works :D
     
  4. Jeremy The Baptist

    Jeremy The Baptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    NIV= Non Inspired Version
     
  5. Michael Edwards

    Michael Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey there friend, care to expand on that thought? Do you have some sort of evidence of this?

    Michael
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    If y'all want to discuss the merits of the NIV, do it on an appropriate thread. This is not the topic here, and we're not going to chase rabbits. BB doesn't have the resources to make every thread a version bashing party.
     
  7. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am another convert from KJVO.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,172
    Likes Received:
    323
    There is a KJVO following that believes the 1611 English is the "re-inspired" text through the direct intervention of God upon the KJV translators.

    Therefore the KJV 1611 English supercedes the Greek and Hebrew.

    The problem being that they all use the KJV 1769 revision with hundreds of differences between it and the 1611 first edition. When pressed for an answer to this problem, I have seen at least one indidual quote Psalms 12:6

    6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    and apply it to the several revisions of the 1611KJV.

    In other words it took God seven attempts to come up with "pure" words. Even if this were true then they should be backing the 1769 Revision (since that is the one they all use), Second, they need to revise their doctrine of re-inspiration to cover the later publishers, editors and printers who corrected the mistakes (impurities) of the perpetrators of these impurities of the 1611 Edition.

    As their explanations become more bizzare, their credibility becomes less credible (at least to me).

    (edited by HankD for errors of spelling who couldn't get it right the first time).

    HankD

    [ April 22, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  9. Ryan DeBarr

    Ryan DeBarr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have converted from "KJVO" to "Byzantine Superiority" over the course of the past few months.
     
  10. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ryan, amen! Welcome to the Byzantine priority position. [​IMG] :D
     
  11. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    HHHHHHeeeeeerrrrrreeeeeee wwwwwweeeee gggggoooo aaaggggaaaaiiiiinnnn! With apologies to Thomas Cassidy and Ryan... Brother Glen :eek:

    [ April 24, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  12. Michael Edwards

    Michael Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do the folks who support the Byzantine text do when the Byzantine texts disagree on a reading? Is there some solution to that which has been developed? I'm very curious.

    Michael
     
  13. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    We do the same thing everybody else does. We evaluate the manuscript evidence and determine the correct reading. We look, primarily, for these indicators.

    1. Numerical superiority. What do most of the MSS say?
    2. Historical superiority. What have the churches believed/taught down through the ages of history?
    3. Contextual superiority. What fits the context best?
    4. Cross textual superiority. Does any Alexandrian MSS evidence support a Byzantine reading?
    5. Vernacular superiority. What do the oldest versions say?

    And, just like very one else, when we fail to reach a conclusion using the above criteria, we guess, but use scholarly language and call it a "conjectural emendation." :D
     
  14. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i wonder whether these "canons" are ranked n how they apply when in conflict w one another.

    example: how does 1Jn5:7 match up to 1. Numerical superiority. What do most of the MSS say?

    in Practice, does faith in Byzantine priority make way for KJB Superiority?

    anyone can make a list of criteria--application is the test of consistency.
     
  15. Michael Edwards

    Michael Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, if the #1 criteria is majority (numerical suppport), is that actually applied consistently. I believe Zane Hodges holds to that point of the "majority" text. I don't know that the majority text always sides with Byzantine though.

    Michael
     
  16. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    My NT professor, Maurice Robinson, is probably the premier proponent of the Byzantine Priority position. He does not in any way, shape or form, hold to KJVO.

    This goes for CT proponents as well. ;)
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    One criteria that Thomas appears to have omitted although he might include in one of the ones he listed there is this: What reading best accounts for the others? Here, the idea is that the variants are a change from the original (obviously) and that the one that is original best explains how the others came to be.

    I do believe age of a reading plays a bigger role than Thomas would believe, simply because the closer we get to the original, the more likely we are to be accurate, all other things being equal. Of course, this last phrase is the kicker and a matter of discussion ... how equal are "all other things."

    It is true that consistency is the key. And I think this is where the TR only folks stumble a bit. There are places in the TR that differ from the Majority (1800x rings a bell). Under Thomas's criteria, those would seem to need to be changed (as many people such as Burgon, Scrivener, etc. readily admit).

    However, IMO, this is where the discussion should be taking place ... the realm of original language manuscripts rather than English translations.

    [ April 25, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  18. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,
    Are those your steps in order? Do you give higher weight to #1 than #4 and so on? Just want to clarify.

    [ April 25, 2002, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  19. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    yes, when somehow heads always winds up on top every time a coin is tossed, u have to wonder [​IMG]

    what's uncanny is that KJB-Superior analyses somehow always manages to defend the KJB as superior even in the most unlikely of passages--it's hard not to be suspicious.

    there's no such serendipity in the CT--sometimes the Majority or Byzantine comes up tops, sometimes a minority reading, occasionally perhaps the TR. every variant is considered n the options weighed without a preconceived conclusion (e.g. a KJB reading) in mind.

    This goes for CT proponents as well. ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]
     
  20. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.
     

Share This Page

Loading...