new book on Bible translation issue

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Part of the Table of Contents of a new 658 page hardcover book entitled King James Onlyism: a New Sect by Dr. James D. Price (executive editor of NKJV's O. T.) that is now available follows:
    [I have not read it yet since I just received a copy of it today]

    INTRODUCTION: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea

    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Baptists
    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Presbyterians
    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Lutherans
    Original Languages Were Authoritative for the Evangelical Free Church of America
    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Interdenominational Churches
    Original Languages Were Authoritative for Historical Leaders
    Fundamentalism Is Divided over the King James Only Issue
    This Book Discusses the Problems of the King James Only View

    1. Early English Versions Were Incomplete until Wycliffe
    Translating Is an Ancient Tradition
    Bible Translations before Wycliffe Were Incomplete
    Wycliffe Translated the First Complete Bible
    Wycliffe’s Bible Was Opposed

    2. Tyndale Was the First to Translate from Hebrew and Greek
    Tyndale’s First New Testament Was in 1526
    Tyndale Translated the Pentateuch in 1530
    Tyndale Revised the New Testament in 1535
    Tyndale Was Martyred in 1536
    Tyndale Translation Exhibited Literary Excellence

    3. Tyndale’s Translation Was Revised Seven Times
    Coverdale Revised Tyndale’s Bible
    Matthew’s Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale and Coverdale
    The Great Bible Was a Revision of Matthew’s
    Sample of the Great Bible
    The Geneva Bible Was a Revision of Tyndale
    The Bishop’s Bible Was a Revision of the Great Bible
    The Rheims-Douay Bible Was Translated from Latin

    4. The King James Version Was a Revision
    Fifty-Four Translators Participated
    The Qualifications of the Translators
    The Theology of the Translators
    The Character of the Translators
    The Translators Had Fifteen Instructions
    The Translation Was Carefully Edited
    The Translation Exhibits Literary Excellence
    The First Printing Was in 1611

    5. The King James Version Was Revised Several Times
    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1629
    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1638
    The KJV Was Unsuccessfully Revised in 1653
    The KJV Was Revised at Cambridge in 1762
    The KJV Was Revised at Oxford in 1769
    Nearly 24,000Changes Were Made

    6. Current Editions of the King James Version Differ
    Known Discrepancies Exist
    Misprints Exist
    Other Inadvertent Oversights Exist
    Many Archaic and Obsolete Words Remain
    Current Editions Differ
    Current Differences Are Recorded

    7. The Biblical Text Was Preserved through Ancient Bibles
    The Texts May Have Been Preserved by Various Means
    The Hebrew Text Was Preserved in Ancient Hebrew Bibles
    The Greek Text Was Preserved in Ancient Greek Bibles
    Various Types of Manuscripts Exist
    The Manuscripts Are Variously Distributed
    Conclusion: Many Witnesses Exist for the Hebrew and Greek Texts

    8. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Ancient Translations
    The Greek Versions Preserved the Text
    Aramaic Versions Preserved the Text
    The Syriac Versions Preserved the Text
    Latin Versions Preserved the Text
    The Coptic Versions Preserved the Text
    Ethiopic Version Preserved the Text
    The Armenian Version Preserved the Text
    The Georgian Version Preserved the Text
    The Waldensian Version Is Wrongly Represented
    Conclusion: The Witness of the Versions Is Secondary

    9. The Biblical Text Was Preserved in Patristic Quotations
    Quotations of the Old Testament Preserved the Text
    Quotations of the New Testament Preserved the Text
    Conclusion: The Witness of the Quotations Is Incomplete and Secondary

    [An attempt is being made to made it available at amazon.com]

    Otherwise, order information can be obtained from:

    James D. Price
    2102 Colonial Pkwy Dr
    Chattanooga, TN 37421-3309

     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Checking this out I found a real cool web page:

    http://www.nmsr.org/neg-code.htm#rebut3

    Negative Bible Codes

    This shows that there are thousands of Bible Code matches
    that say 'noun' & not 'noun'. This proves that Bible Codes
    are bunk. IMHO Bible Codes are part of the end of times
    apostasy.
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently James D. Price has a pretty good handle on things - much better than Gipp, Ripplinger & Ruckman!
     
  4. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I sat under Dr. Price's teaching at Tennessee Temple University in the early '80s. He's a good man and has brilliant mind.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dr. Price wrote that Edward "Hills presumed that God guided Erasmus, and the editors and the printers, to correct the errors in the Greek Traditional Text by means of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. This kind of providential guidance is essentially no different than the divine inspiration given to the prophets and apostles when they wrote the original autographs of Scriptures. This kind of divine guidance is nothing less than a form of double inspiration--a doctrine taught nowhere in the Bible. Hills did not express his conclusion in these terms; in fact, he denied that the process involved inspiration" (p. 269).

    Price added: "But double inspiration is the logical consequence of his presumed form of providential preservation--there is no essential difference" (p. 270).
     

Share This Page

Loading...