More accurate?

You and "facts" are antithetical to one another.

 

Or even worse, one could actually be a "Southern Baptist" according to one poster.

There are a lot of "them thar'" 'SBC' types around as well, you know.

Ed

 

I'r one!

:wavey:

 

Brothers in the Lord.

If you are comfortable with your favorite version and are convinced that all are the Word of God in english then thats you.Brother David Sorenson wrote a book called touch not the unclean thing that helped me make my final decision.

He says for 15 years as a Fundamental Baptist that He was in favor of the critical text and that all bibles were God`s Word.He now believes different because it became increasingly clear to him that the critical text had connections with apostasy which made him as a Fundamentalist quite ill at ease.


He goes on to say the more he learned about the underlying critical text the people involved therewith and the translations emanating therefrom the more involvement of the doctrine of seperation began to come into view.

His book documents the historic lineage of the two primary texual bases.On the one hand the history of the Received Text and particularly one strain thereof finds to be associated with our persecuted martyred brethren in seperatist churches across the face of history.

On the other hand the lineage of the critical text in his book shows to be linked to apostasy at virtually every step in history.

He says as theological liberalism (i.e.apostasy) little by little gained control of the prominent denominations in America those who considered themselves as Fundamentalist eventually seperated from the apostasy of their denominations.

Brother David Sorenson is a third generation Fundamentalist and he understands the background of his audience and the need to clearly explain this highly controversial topic.

During the years of his seminary training the default position in which he was trained was that of the critical text and its concomitant use of various modern translations of the Bible the NASB in particular.He says there wereupward of fifteen years in which he routinely referred to the NASB in study and he even at times used it from the teaching lectern or the pulpit.

He says he had been {note:Trained} that any translation of the Bible was acceptable (in theory)as long as it was a "good"translation.He says little or nothing was said to him regarding the significant differences between the two principle texual bases.He says hence by training he was indoctrinated in the critical text position and taught to be extremely wary of anything which approached using the King James Version of the Bible as one`s biblical base.

He says that he can honetly say that he has sat where many presently sit on this controversial issue.In his book in a later chapter he throws considerable attention to the double stream of Bible translations which exist in our world today.

He goes on to say there is no question that most Fundamental Baptist brethren who hold opposing positions of KJV Only are good men just as I believe.

His book documents the apostasy connected with the critical text and he in no way is implying that Fundamental Baptist brethren who hold to the critical text view are organizationally connectedwith apostasy.

He documents Fundamental Institutions of higher learning which uphold the critical text position.He says the leadership of these schools ought to know better in many cases they have never carefully studied the other side of the issue and their graduates therefore are at risk of moving in a direction which violates biblical principles as well as the professors who may move the position of the institution.

He also says when he was in seminary both sides of the issue were never presented and moreover it seemed evident to him that his seminary professors had never studied the opposing view.

I believe you should consider reading this book of his before you accept the final verdict that all of the modern day bibles some better than others is the Word of God.

The Word of God is not better in some bibles and worse in others.Its unthinkable to think such.

Brother David Sorenson who has been on both sides of the fence has the right to proclaim the truth and has no axes to grind except the ax of truth.

Some books are hard to understand on this issue but Brother David has done a perfect job presenting with documented facts the real truth about this issue.

Touch Not The Unclean Thing - The Text Issue and Seperation.

by David Sorenson.

Thank you Brother David Sorenson for your book.



God bless in Jesus.

Steven.

 

Sister I am sorry and apologize to you for hijacking your thread.

I will share this link to a book by A.W.Pink the divine inspiration of the Bible.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Inspiration/inspiration.htm

Also some questions and answers to bible questions.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp






God in Jesus bless you.

 

Thank you so much.I really can`t answer that for you but here is a link to the Westcott and Hort controversy its worth a look.

http://www.pbministries.org/Parachurch/bible/Westcott_Hort_controversy.htm

God bless you in Jesus.

Steven.

 

for those looking for more balanced documentation, here are 2 additional sites:

The Westcott-Hort Resource Centre

The Westcott-Hort Forum

 

With out looking at the referrences made here. I would say that scholars would attempt to look at all the text first to see what comonalities there are in all the text. These would then be considered to be most likely to be comparable to the original text. Where divergence comes into play they would then compare the oldest text available and make a decision. based on how close the translation is to the intent with the oldest texts extant. Fortunately for us is the Qumran find which gives us an even older text to review modern text against. However, beyond that its mostly speculation. Now when it comes to the TR we see translations filling in the gaps coming from Jeromes Latin Vulgate. Which is itself a translation from Greek text that were extant during Jeromes life. So you have Greek and hebrew translated into Latin and being translated into another form of Greek for the TR. So talk about a confused source text!

 

Question: How did God preserve His words to this day?

Answer: God preserved copies of His words down through time, using four main languages He chose for that purpose. All through history, God made several choices as to the languages in which He would communicate His message.

Choice 1: Hebrew
From at least as far back as Abraham (around 2000 BC) to the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, God chose the Semitic languages, especially Hebrew, to communicate to His chosen people. God gave his law in Hebrew to teach men that they were sinners, and in need of a Saviour.

Choice 2: Greek
But in the first century AD, God made a second choice. The main language of the world for three centuries had been Greek. God used that language to give the New Testament for the world to read. And it spread like wildfire.

The devil recognized the huge potential of God's Word in a "world" language, so he moved quickly to counter it. He prepared a fake "Bible" in Alexandria, Egypt. The Old Testament portion is called the "Septuagint" and the New Testament portion is called the "Alexandrian text." This corruption was a "Greek" Bible, but with the poison of the Apocrypha mixed in, made to look like real scripture. The Alexandrian "Bible" also perverted the New Testament, taking out many of God's words and substituting man's ideas. This laid the groundwork for the Satan's plan to spread religious lies, and subvert the true faith.

Choice 3: Old Latin
From about 120 AD until the 1500s, God used a third language to communicate His truths, in addition to Hebrew and Greek. While the first copies of the New Testament in Greek were being made and passed around, God directed other Christians to translate His preserved words into Old Latin. This language was being spoken more and more in Europe, and became an "international" language as Greek had been. The Old Latin Bible was known as the "Vulgate," which means "common Bible." Once again, God's words were spreading, and many Europeans began translating these Old Latin scriptures into their own languages.

The devil responded by preparing a counterfeit "Vulgate" in Rome. By the 300s, the Roman religion claimed to be true Christianity, and a new "Bible" was made from the perverted Alexandrian writings. It included the Apocryphal books that the early church had rejected. But to make it convincing, they also put in some scriptures that were like the preserved Old Latin Bible as well. There were now two Latin "Vulgates," dramatically different from one another. The true Christians knew the difference between the true and the false "Vulgates."

The devil knew what he had to do next. He had to destroy the true Latin Vulgate, and the people who held it so dearly. The Roman Catholic armies hunted down and martyred those who were caught possessing the true Latin Vulgate. But they were never able to completely replace the true Latin Vulgate with the corrupted Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. God was preserving His words.

Choice 4: English
Around 700-800 AD English, a new "world" language began to develop. God began laying the groundwork to use this language to trigger a massive missionary movement. In the 1500s William Tyndale worked to translate the Bible from the accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that God had so carefully preserved. English-speaking people after him continued the effort to translate and perfect a Bible that matched the ancient scriptures. One of the best of these is the Geneva Bible.

English was a language in the midst of change. But by 1604 God used King James I of England to commission a group of learned men to accumulate scriptures in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English as well as other languages. Their assignment was to translate God's words into the most accurate English possible. In early 1611 they published the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Bible. From the day it was published, the King James Bible circulated around the world, and missionaries translated Bibles from this precious book.

The devil pulled out all the stops on this one. By the 1800s he had inspired a whole movement to discredit and destroy the King James Bible. Today, we have a multitude of translations that change, remove and add to God's preserved words. But God has always kept the true scriptures in the hands of his people.

In making the four choices of language as described above, God was not trying to indicate that any single language was more expressive or better than another. Rather, He chose these languages because they suited his purpose at a particular time in history to carry out his plan. The choices were God's. Outside of Israel, Hebrew was never a universal language. Ancient Greek is no longer a universal language, nor is Latin. But by guiding the production of a perfect Bible in English, God kept His promise. For our time, in a language read around the world, God preserved His words.

Source:

http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/preservedcopies.asp

 

I'm sorry pilgrim, you're confussed. Note: I am not a bible scholar yet I do know some basic truths. the Old latin Text is not the Vulgate. Jerome certainly knew of the Old Latin text. Wanting to make it more current he used it as well as older sources he could personally view. Jerome translated the bible into the comon latin or the use of a latin term into the vulgar latin. Or what we know know as Latin Vulgate. Note that the Old latin text used the Greek translations or the LXX or Septuagint. Jerome was insistant to use original Hebrew and Aramaic text as he could find them. But there were difficulty in finding hebrew for all the text like psalms so he translated them from the LXX. So you're wrong about that one. Note the Alexandrian text differed stylistically and show brevity and austerity not polished like the Byzantine text. Note this is understandable when you understand the nature of languages Greek and latin had more poetic older versions of the language. There was a particular method of speaking in the older forms that made it poetical. More flowery is more like it. As the language devoloped its later versions were more typical of common vernacular. Alexandrian is this later type. Byzantine is not. Note that the Byzantine text has several purposely altered text to combine two or more divergent text into one passage or conflageration in an attempt to harmonize paralle passages. So it seems theres a bit more reading for you to do with the text.

 

Well regarding the Septuagint Jesus nor Paul ever quoted it and it has been exposed as a fraud.

http://www.moresureword.com/LXXHOAX.htm

God bless in Jesus name.

Steven.

 

First of all that has nothing to do with the post I presented. I was speaking specifically of the text in question.

2nd of all your referrence doesn't play out.

So even in this community we see use of the LXX. So clearly if these ultra legalistic Jews used the LXX so could have Jesus and Paul. The argument against it isn't well thought out.

 

"The devil recognized the huge potential of God's Word in a "world" language, so he moved quickly to counter it. He prepared a fake "Bible" in Alexandria, Egypt. The Old Testament portion is called the "Septuagint" and the New Testament portion is called the "Alexandrian text." This corruption was a "Greek" Bible, but with the poison of the Apocrypha mixed in, made to look like real scripture. The Alexandrian "Bible" also perverted the New Testament, taking out many of God's words and substituting man's ideas. This laid the groundwork for the Satan's plan to spread religious lies, and subvert the true faith."

Utter trash and lies.............................

How can you even possibly come close to believing such things !!!!!! This is the problem with you people, you don't even know the truth. The Septuagint was translated for Ptolemy in 285 BC and used by the Hellenistic Jews that hardly spoke any Hebrew anymore.

You should learn what the Apocrypha actually is and how it came into being then later rejected. The Old Testament Apocrypha was rejected as inspired in 90 A.D. by the Jews as they are all Jewish books. The New Testament Apocryphal books such as The Shepard of Hermas and others were rejected in the councils of Carthage and Hippo of est 385 and 390 AD well after the Codex Sinaiticus. That's why they are in there. Christendom had yet to reject them as a whole. That is one thing that makes Sinaiticus a treasure.

Do you know what the first translation to place the Apocrypha in there own section was??? The Latin Vulgate of Jerome thats which one!!!! You know the one you say is sooo corrupt. Jerome put them in their own section because he was familiar with the Jewish texts and knew that they rejected them. He wanted to throw them out completely but Rome insisted he translate them. Jerome was told to use the LXX as his base for the Old Testament but he refused and used the Hebrew with the help of a Jewish Christian as an assistant. He refused to use the texts for the New Testament that Rome told him to also claiming he had better texts where he was at.

Guess where Jerome studied ................Jerusalem and Antioch and Alexandria.

You sit here and tell of the Apocrypha as if it were a poison without even acknowledging the fact that the 1611 KJV came with all remaining 14 books of the Apocrypha. You sir and totally and completely confused. They were not even fully removed till about 150 years ago. They just weren't included because of tightwad printers wanting to save a buck.

Do yourself a favor and save some credibility and don't spread that kind of garbage around educated people.

As far as the rest goes, its not truly worth my time to even respond.

I apologize of my attitude seems harsh but I think this kind of content deserves it.

 

Sometimes a hard head heeds hard words where soft ones will simply slip by.

Truth IS hard.

 

Oh, I see, some people get accused of being mean and hateful, while others get an "OK" when it agrees with the "good ole boys" on here. This forum REEKS of favoritism, and you are in serious denial of that fact.

 

You're spouting hatred! Expressing your anger and bigotry! How can people put up with that? You're constantly questioning the bible and its authority as can be said in your wooooooorrrrrrrrrrddddddssssss uh! The truth is TRUTH and its always HARD. Its like bricks that fall down on your head. like this :tonofbricks: Thats how truth is. IF Truth wasn't hard it would be soft but its not! Soft that is! Soft is for the devil and charmine and Mr. Whipple. Truth is hard. Really, really hard. IT makes you say ouch. BTW I like other people that I don't insult. SO that proves I show no favoritism.

I'm still working on my sarcasm. I have a long ways to go. But thats my best shot now. :laugh:

 

And AV1611.com doesn't? At least here folks can discuss even if they disagree- at least until they become disagreeable.

 

clever words, indeed, and reminiscent of much of KJBO scholastic mind-worship.

but why not pick on someone your own size: why not pick on Jesus' words in this thread?

since WKJ's down for the count right now, maybe u cld lend a hand on behalf of the KJBOs.