Minimum support & KJVO

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bluefalcon, Nov 5, 2004.

  1. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    KJVO believes only the KJV is without error against all other versions. But what about translations that depend upon only one or two Greek manuscripts against all the others? The faulty logic of both is the same.

    Here's one for you NASB lovers: Mt. 3:7: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism ...." The problem is that only two Greek manuscripts have "baptism," while all others have "his baptism."

    That only two Greek manuscripts in Egypt preserved the original and all others propagated corruption at this place in Scripture is similar to saying the few manuscripts Erasmus had at his disposal always had among them the original readings, no matter what readings all the others in the world had.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  2. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which definition of KJVO that we use in this forum are you using?

    If it is a 4 or 5 position, then the comparison is invalid, as it isn't the same logic, because the logic of those positions lies solely in the translations themselves and not the manuscripts at all.

    The issue at stake with an MV is the preferred texttype itself, over which there is intramural debate regarding why the Alex. texttype is preferred over Byzantine, et.al. Is this the logic you are trying to address?

    If it is a 3 or lower position, there may be some validity to the comparison. Honestly, logic is my forte, but its nigh unto 3am for me and I'm not really in a frame of mind to sit and think through the comparison. Off hand, however, it's not quite the same logic, as in a #3 definition, the TR itself is considered inspired and inerrant, whereas the Alex. preferred tends most strongly to the Chicago Statement with reference to inspiration and inerrancy, so the comparison really isn't a valid one.
     
  3. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    The NIV at Mt. 6:33: "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ...." Only two Greek manuscripts have it this way. All others have "... the kingdom of God ...."

    Am I the only one who has a problem with this? That only these two Greek manuscripts from Egypt out of all available manuscripts in the entire world preserved the true reading is imposing impossible strains upon my imagination.

    Not only does the NIV at Mt. 6:33 lack Greek manuscript support, but also the song sounds stupid with the words of the NIV.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  4. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon,

    I do not understand your problem, but I see a problem that perhaps you don't. You are asking your questions in a manner as becomes a rabid KJVO. While I do not know your slant on that matter, your profile does not indicate you to be of that ilk. I could be wrong, I guess, but you would be the first ABC KJVO missionary I have ever met.

    ==============================================

    What is the big deal if a translation leans on a weak underlying text? None of the texts are perfect, and we would not know if it was since we do not have the originals to compare it to. True, translating a verse as scripture when it does not have manuscriptural support is not the best way, but the verse you have cited do not change anything doctrinally.

    What difference is there between saying "for baptism" and saying "for his baptism"? Both statements put the people at the same place.

    What difference is there between saying "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness" and saying "seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness"? Both say the same thing...unless you pull the verses out of their context. Otherwise, you already have whose kingdom is being talked about.

    So, what is the big deal?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon said:

    Not only does the NIV at Mt. 6:33 lack Greek manuscript support, but also the song sounds stupid with the words of the NIV.

    Heh. They didn't teach "proof by catchier tune" when I took logic back in school.

    One could argue by the same logic - heh heh - that the NIV is better because "Jars of Clay" is a cooler band name than "Earthen Vessels" (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7).
     
  6. Glory Bound

    Glory Bound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    To me, this makes some difference, even if it's not a doctrinal difference. Were they coming to be baptised themselves, or to witness a baptism?

    Inquiring minds want to know! (Or at least would LIKE to know - the real answer may not be possible to discover)
     
  7. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Matthew 3:7

    But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (KJV)

    But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (NASB)

    The problem comes from trying to look at only one verse pulled out of context. When the verse is read, you can clearly see what is being said.

    Matthew 3:1-12
    1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
    2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
    3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
    4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
    5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
    6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
    7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
    8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
    9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
    10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
    12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
    (KJV)

    And

    1 Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying,
    2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
    3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,
    "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
    'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD,
    MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'"
    4 Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
    5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan;
    6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
    7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
    8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;
    9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
    10 "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
    11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
    12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
    (NASB)

    It is clear that these teach the same exact thing when read in word-for-word in context - instead of ripping a small phrase or word out and crying corruption.
     
  8. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    How good you think something sounds to music has no bearing here. As with your first example, the NIV and the KJV teach the same exact thing when read word-for-word in context. I don't know about you, but I read the whole Bible - not just a phrase or word hear and there.
     
  9. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    But, TC, that is how the KJVO's show that the MVs don't measure up to their idol...uh, version.

    It is easy to try to twist scripture by doing just that: pulling a single verse out of context.

    It is obvious in the context shown that both say the exact same thing.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Might I warn you up front, I don't speak for the moderators, but I for one do NOT appreciate you saying the Word of God sounds "STUPID". :mad:
     
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    BF: "The NIV at Mt. 6:33: "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness ...." Only two Greek manuscripts have it this way. All others have "... the kingdom of God ...."

    Actually, BF, only *one* MS (Aleph this time -- the song underlying the MVs often remains similar, it seems) reads as per the NIV.

    The other MS you cited (B) reads it in reverse: "But seek first the righteousness and his kingdom".

    *All* other MSS read as you noted "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." I know which reading I prefer (and that on reasonable text-critical grounds).
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ziggy, thanks for bringing this up. I was getting ready to start pulling my book on manuscript variants and finding out just how many manuscripts have this and have that.

    Maybe it is just me, but I have a feeling Bluefalcon is playing very loose when he states manuscript numbers.

    Tomorrow, I hope to have the time to look at each variant and find out just how accurate he is on all of his posts that quote manuscript quantities. [​IMG]
     
  13. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am not KJVO, I repeat, I am not KJVO! And I work under the auspices of the SBC, not ABC. Does that make me a bad person?

    I suppose all of Matthew could disappear without changing anything doctrinally, since we have three other Gospels and other biblical books that together make up for any lack.

    But that is not the point! How well founded is the Bible in English? I've already pointed to several places in English versions with singular Greek manuscript support, and this doesn't inspire confidence in the arguments of apologists like Josh McDowell, who say the words of our Bible are supported by thousands upon thousands of Greek manuscripts.

    Does anyone wish to discuss the evidence of the few places I've mentioned? I'm beginning to think no one cares.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0


    Could have fooled me? If your not KJVo you must be TRo? Or, by definition you are a KJVo Level #2 or #3?

    No offense, but I'm SBC and have a right to say this: I don't know why you made the statement about working under the auspices of the SBC, but knowing the politics in the SBC it really doesn't explain anything. It is certainly not a bad thing, it just doesn't prove anything.



    You were the one complaining about us not using Dr. Bob's definitions; now I am using them. Based on what you say you are KJVo #2 or #3, right?

    It seems like the problem is not whether people care, but whether they care about debating YOUR subjects on YOUR terms.

    I was once set straight by an old man who told me (because of my mouth) "Son. . . if a person could be right just 51% of the time, they could be a millionaire in one year in the stock-market. You need to think real-hard about what I just told you."

    See, I think the problem here is that you assume that you are right and the rest of the scholars on the thread need to be taught the "truth" -- as you see it. Am I wrong? :confused:

    [ November 05, 2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  15. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, not one person has tried to defend the readings I brought up, and silence speaks volumes. I've not once appealed to the KJV or the TR.

    I will type this again so that you might listen: I am not KJVO, I am not TRO. Your posts have wrongly assumed this, claiming I get my information from a KJVO 101 website or something. I've gotten all my information from the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, although, as Ziggy pointed out, I overlooked a variation of Vaticanus on Mt. 6:33.

    It's funny just how little answering of legitimate questions goes on here, just blasting people as KJVO and assuming that solves it all. I jokingly blast people as MVO, because it appears to me the logic behind the two are the same: "Ha! Our one or two great manuscripts are better than thousands of your corrupt ones!" But no one on this board attempts to prove they are great. They just go about following them blindly and without argument. And Phillip appears to be the paragon of this kind of thing.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  16. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon said:

    Well, not one person has tried to defend the readings I brought up, and silence speaks volumes.

    Don't flatter yourself. We just don't like having to repeat ourself to every Tom1611, Dick1611 and Harry1611 that shows up around here with the same old tired arguments.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    I do remember one individual who was as close to NASBO as one could come and not fall off the edge of the world of reality.

    There were some heated debates for a while and then he disappeared (as far as I know).

    Personally, for the most part I disagree with the W&H theories RE:
    Byzantine conflation
    Shorter reading best
    older reading best
    difficult reading best
    fixation on Aleph/B
    etc...

    To name a few.

    I prefer Burgon's seven tests of authenticity.

    Over the years and seeing the several kinds of spirit that this issue has brought forth from the hearts (my own included) of those who participate in this debate has been very revealing.

    Or, in other words, on a personal and individual level, I believe there is a another issue working here:

    Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

    HankD
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thing is, BF, that different mss were written by different scribes, and variants are to be expected. Something often overlooked in the equation is the POWER OF GOD in preserving His word. it stands to reason that if there was only ONE correct ms or "set" of mss, that God would have clearly shown us which was which. The fact that He DIDN'T shows us that He allows these variants. As is pointed out above, they say essentially the same thing. In the baptism example above, John "chewed out" the Pharisees for their unbelief and hypocrisy.

    When translating a work into a very different language, we simply cannot expect an exact word-for-word rendering. And we do NOT know how many times the known Scriptural mss had been translated, how many times removed from the originals they are. But none of this is lost on GOD. We have His word as HE chooses to present it, whether it meets OUR criteria or not. After all, God made all languages, and He presents his word in each of them as HE chooses.

    Does this sound like simply a convenient explanation for textual variants? Let me ask...DOES ANYONE HAVE A BETTER ONE? After all, we ALL believe God has preserved His word, and He has NOT pointed out any one "line" as being His "official" version. Without PROOF of corruption, we have NO RIGHT to simply pick-n-choose among the mss by OUR standards. Whatever standard any of us holds is inferior to GOD'S standard. And rejecting one ms by comparing it to another is simply SILLY, if their different readings is the ONLY standard used.

    Yes, there are some obviously-corrupt mss, but the corruption is easy to see...they vary CONSIDERABLY from all other known mss either by having material ADDED or by having readings CONSIDERABLY...not just a word or two...different from all other known mss. We cannot reject a ms based upon a few "omissions' alone if what's there is consistent with the majority of other mss.

    In our police school, there had been an observer there for several sessions. One day, an actor suddenly ran into our class & "shot" the observer, then ran out. There were 32 of us in that class, & the instructor asked all of us to write what we'd observed. There were 32 different accounts written, differing in what the shooter was wearing, his size & approx. age, what kind of weapon he used, and even which hand he'd held the weapon in. However, the scene had been videotaped, and after we compared out accounts to deduce that the shooter was about 6', 200 lb with long dark hair, wearing dark sweats & a beret, Nike sneakers(Most of us remembered the "swoosh") and was carrying a dark, snub-nose revolver, we saw the video and found that as a class we were about 90% right, and we had remembered enuff to make a credible witness testimony in court.

    But God's word has a much-higher standard...after all, it's our HIGHEST WRITTEN AUTHORITY. And we have what GOD HAS GIVEN US. Whether it meets OUR criteria or not is immaterial; after all, God's will is THE TOP...NO HIGHER AUTHORITY! Who are WE to question how GOD chooses to provide His word for us? Does anyone think God's gonna allow His word to be replaced with corruption?
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Silence says nothing. If oyu read the Bible there were ties when Jesus was silent.

    Maybe some of us don't like to repeat oursleves and beat the same old drum again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

    When you get a chance try the archives on the BB. You might find what you are looking for.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    gb, thank you for the answer to Bluefalcon. The archives have literally TONS of specific discussions.

    It seems odd that Bluefalcon shotguns us with a single verse and says: "What about this?" "He claims not to be KJVo, but he asks questions that a KJVo will ask."

    I just think he is new to the board and needs to take your advice and spend about two weeks reading archives. Then he might understand the reason for the silence or "tongue-in-cheek" answers.

    Actually, there is a LOT of good information in the archives, if one is willing to ignore a little mud-slinging.

    Bluefalcon reminds me of someone who shows up in a business meeting where a discussion has been going on for four hours regarding a problem and tries to fix it without first listening to the conversation.

    Bluefalcon, for you; you might think about telling us a little bit about yourself. Most of us already know each other and where we stand on the issues.

    We do not know you; we do not know your intent; and we are going to be leary of anybody who comes along making blatant accusations that we are not answering YOUR questions to YOUR satisfaction when we may have spent many hours on that same question multiple times in the past.

    We love you as a Christian, but honestly, anybody in the WORLD can sign up on this board and start asking questions. We just do not KNOW YOU! So, do us all a favor and don't prejudge us until you get to know us.

    Talk with us and develop some trust with some of the members. Let us know what goals you are trying to obtain before you start making judgements about us. Don't just walk into the kitchen and start demanding answers without at least letting us know where you are coming from, what you want and what you believe.

    Why don't you tell us what you believe? That might be a good place to start.

    . . . just a little advice from someone who has been through this and had to learn the hard way.

    Arguments you may see on the board are between brothers and sisters who have known each other and been through thick and thin (much like a real family). To be accepted in a real family, it is not wise to stomp into the house and start demanding answers and making judgemental remarks until we get to know you enough to at least know what your motives are.

    We want to discuss with you, but we are not going to be baited into cat-fights with someone coming across as a "better-than-though" who sounds much like my teenagers.

    We do want to discuss things, but lighten up a bit and don't be so pushy and I think we can have some enlightening conversations. I hope this helps some. We are NOT trying to be some kind of closed society, but most of us know each other fairly well and many for several years. You seem to know a little bit about what you are talking about, so you can obviously add positively to the conversations, but it won't happen if you start off with a better-than-though judgemental attitude. Just relax a little. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...