Textual Criticism

I appreciate the balanced tone that C4K brings to discussions like this, but I am afraid brother that you are a hair off :smilewinkgrin: if you will recall, I was pretty much exactly the same as far as defending the KJV almost 5 years ago when I first got on as I am now. PCC has merely taught me how to better argue a point, and how to attempt to put my thoughts into a more organized fashion. The majority of my knowledge comes from my own study in my spare time and the fact that I have had almost 5 more years in which to study.

And I might also say that PCC is actually a TR school, not a KJVO school, and I have (politely) debated the issue with a number of the faculty there. I am not in perfect agreement with them on all of their stand.

Logos, and Annsi,you have perfectly illustrated how I like to see responses, you organized your points clearly, you made an answer to everything my post raised, and you did it politely. As our brother C4K stated, it is good to always hear both sides, and while I do not agree with your position, I appreciate the way you carefully responded. You really must have put some time into that one :thumbs:

I appreciate that, I will get back to you later tonight with my response as I am going to have to double check the Greek part of my premlinary response with my dad, who has a degree in it and so can make sure I have got it right.

In Christ,
Thumper

 

I have eliminated the original quotes by me on here in order to make this a shorter post, to any one interested in them, refer back to the I believe first page of this thread.

To answer this, allow me quote David Cloud "...statement does not answer the matter of whether or not the British government was right in so

copyrighting the Word of God. ...attempting to use the British copyright of the KJV to justify...copyright...just because the British government copyrighted

the King James Bible does not mean that it is right to do so.

...statement fails to answer how a private American company today can compare itself with the 17th century British government. The Crown’s copyright of the

KJV was secured in the historical context of a state church. This is comparing apples and oranges.

...statement passes over the significant fact that the KJV can be freely published today and effectively is not copyrighted."

The truth of the matter is that the King James can be freely published without a fee paid to any organization. May I remind you that the Bible says in 1Ti

6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with

many sorrows."

Modern Versions have reaped millions of dollars for their publishers, they are always advertised as being neccessary to have in order to better understand

the Word of God(Until the next new version comes out) and they almost always compare themselves to the King James, the King James is the benchmark by which

all modern versions that I have ever looked at there preface are measured by. In the end, although there are many good, godly men who are sincerely

attempting to make a good translation, there are man more who merely do it for "filthy lucre".

You are only partially correct, Authorized Version Publications has this to say, "The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan
trinity, not the Christian Trinity. Use of number symbols (like this 666)
can be traced back to Pythagoras (582 B.C.), initiate into the Egyptian
mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley (circa
1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of
Masonry. The symbol's shape is duplicated as three initiates join arms and feet,
while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can
be seen on the satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on New
Age best sellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy. Remember Acts 17:29 —"we
ought not to think that the Godhead is like {anything}...graven by art...""

It is indeed a symbol for a trinity, just not The Trinity. Further, Constance Cumbey had this to say about it "On the cover of the Aquarian Conspiracy is a

Mobius, it is really used by them as triple six (666). The emblem on the cover of the New King James Bible is said to be an ancient symbol of the Trinity.

The old symbol had gnostic origins. It was more gnostic than Christian. I was rather alarmed when I noticed the emblem..." (The New Age Movement, Southwest

Radio Church, 1982 p.11)

Given that 95% of MSS support the King James rendering, yes we can use it as a standard. I might point out as a side note that claiming that we cannot know

the exact words of God and that we must go to "men of education who are qualified to render a reason on it" is suspiciously similar to Roman Catholic

teaching.

"Mostly spelling errors?"

"Lord"-removed 66 times
"God"- removed 51 times
"heaven"- removed 50 times
"repent"- removed 44 times
"blood"- removed 23 times
"hell"- removed 22 times
"JEHOVAH"- removed entirely
"new testament"- removed entirely
"damnation"- removed entirely
"devils"- removed entirely

See above answer.

You are in trouble if you want that, the originals have not existed for thousands of years. If we were trusting in men to preserve our Bible, then we would

be in trouble, since I trust in God, I have no trouble. And a point about the Greek, referring to it for authority is a rather misleading position, may I

remind you of the varient readings among the 2 major families of texts? Not to mention that fact that depending on the lexicon and text you are using you

will get an different reading? And finally, that the Greek text underlying the new versions (Kittel's) was the work of a man whose son supported the

Holocaust and was tried at Nurumberg for war crimes?

Doctrinally, here are a few verses, on salvation that have varient readings between the KJV and the NKJV:
NKJV-------------------------------------------KJV
1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate Christ---------------------followers...of Christ
Rom. 3:3 faithfulness------------------------- faith
Rom. 11:30, 32 disobedient...disobedience not--believed...unbelief
Rev. 19:8 righteous acts of saints-------------righteousness of saints
1 Cor. 1:18 are being saved------------------- are saved
2 Cor 2:15 are being saved --------------------are saved
Eph. 2:8 have been saved ----------------------are...saved

First of all, "Servant" is a much weaker word then "son", Jesus was God's only (begotten) Son, and the sacrifice He made is greatly diminished by the word

"servent". See my response above for appealing to the Greek.

So you are admitting that the translators or the NKJV changed the Greek to make it say what they felt it should say, rather then what it did say? Well, at

least you are being honest.


Have to split it here.

 

Well, first of all, I want to know what grammar you used when you received your education in Greek, give me the grammar book and I want a citation of the

relevent portion of it.

Your problem apparently also stems from an inability to understand english, there is a pronounced difference between "are sanctified" and "are being

sanctified", the former is the Fundamentalist viewpoint, the latter matches the Roman Catholic viewpoint. There is a pronounced difference between "are

saved" and "are being saved", again, the former matches Fundamentalist doctrine, the latter matches Roman Catholic doctrine, as the manuscripts that the NKJV

rests on when there is a difference of opinion over the true rendering of the Greek, are Catholic in origin, this comes as no surprise.

First of all, Strongs does not support your conclusion of such a translation(3049 and 3053), the fact that you are apparently trying to match your Strongs

against the translators of the King James is rather amusing in the first place. (No offense intended)

Second of all, the English definitions of both words according to Webster are vastly different
"imagination-
1. Conception; image in the mind; idea.

Sometimes despair darkens all her imaginations.

His imaginations were often as just as they were bold and strong.

2. Contrivance; scheme formed in the mind; device.

Thou hast seen all their vengeance, and all their imaginations against me. Lam.3.

3. Conceit; an unsolid or fanciful opinion.
"

and "argument-
1. A reason offered for or against a proposition, opinion, or measure; a reason offered in proof, to induce belief, or convince the mind; followed by for

or against.

2. In logic, an inference drawn from premises, which are indisputable, or at least of probable truth.

3. The subject of a discourse or writing.

4. An abstract or summary of a book, or the heads of the subjects.

5. A debate or discussion; a series of reasoning; as, an argument was had before the court, in which argument, all the reasons were urged.
"

God does not merely defeat our "arguments", He casts down our "imaginations", every "Contrivance; scheme formed in the mind" that man can come up with, God

can overthrow. "Imagination" truly is the correct doctrinal rendering of the passage nd is immensly superior to the weaker "argument".

Um...you just proved my point? "Heretic" clearly is a superior word,for example, someone who decides to hold to the fundamentals in a non-fundamental

church could be characterised as "divisive" but never as a "heretic" biblically speaking.

Yikes this is going to be a long post, I am having to pretty much mainline caffeine just to stay focused =)

Anyhow, since you are throwing the Strongs around again, let me whip(not really, this thing is MASSIVE) mine out, let me remind you that the Strongs is based

on a text, perhaps the Strongs made an error and put kapelueo(2585) when it should have had kataphthero(2704), but so what? God commends those that search

"the Scriptures", not those that search their lexicons. My faith is in the King James, not a man made lexicon.

Here I am in error, I did double check this post before I posted it but I missed James Melton's language there. My apologies to all, this will NOT happen

again. I ask the moderators to please forgive me for breaking BB's rules there.

Back on topic,
There is a difference between "changed" and "exchanged", Webster's defines them i nthe following manner

"changed-
CHANGED, pp. Altered; varied; turned; converted; shifted"

and "exchanged-
EXCHANGED, pp. Given or received for something else; bartered."

A big difference clearly in meaning.

I have always understood it to mean
" 1. Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the

purpose of learning what is not before known.

Hammond generally spent thirteen hours of the day in study.

Study gives strength to the mind; conversation, grace.

2. Attention; meditation; contrivance.

Just men they seemd, and all their study bent to worship God aright and know his works.

3. Any particular branch of learning that is studied. Let your studies be directed by some learned and judicious friend.

4. Subject of attention.

The Holy Scriptures, especially the New Testament, are her daily study.

5. A building or an apartment devoted to study or to literary employment.

6. Deep cogitation; perplexity. [Little used.]"

Am I in error?

It 1611, it meant
" In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect."

I fail to see a problem here.

"The great KJV translators" as you put it, were men whose scholastic ability is above reproach, given that context determines the correct rendering of a

word, and given that neither you apparently nor I read Greek, it comes down to pitting men;s words versus other men's words. My dad, who holds a Bachelors

from Bob Jones says that that is the correct rendering of the passage. Your pastor may say differently, fortunently, we are not putting our trust in men, or

lexicons, but rather in God, and His power bot to inspire, and to preserve His Word. But if we were to put our trust in men, no other group of translators is

equal to the KJV ones.

We do indeed become a new "creature", 2Co 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are

become new."

If every part of us becomes new, then we are a new "creature", God no longer imputes sin to us.(Ro 4:8 )



Wow that was a long answer, possibly the longest I have ever posted. Logos, I am unable to respond to your posts in the way they deserve due to time

contraints on me, I am putting my pcc email address into my profile, if you wish to continue the discussion, feel free to email me, although I warn you, my

time is limited at college for these things. If you get together the list you have of problems with Dr. Streeter's book, feel free to email them to me, I

will then email them to Brother Streeter and have somebody who can access the boards here post it. Regarding accessing this website from PCC, as somebody

brought up, PCC's filter blocks all chat sites unless they are specifily approved by the college. This does not refer to what doctrine is discussed, merely

that the administration must one by one turn off the filter for each site, as it by default does not allow any sites of this nature. I can only access the

main page and the last thread responded to, and I do not believe I can sign in to respond.

I appreciate the debates here and have enjoyed the thought and care put into many of the responses to my threads. I apologise again for not catching the

error regarding rules that I accidently made above.

May you all have a wonderful winter, and those of you in places as cold as MT is right now...I will try to think of ya'll as I spend the remaining months of

the winter in Florida.

God Bless,
Thumper

 

Double post, sorry.

Thumper EDIT: Since I hate to post and run, and not give anyone who wants to, a fair chance at responding, if anybody really desires to discuss my response here with me, feel free to email your response to my PCC address, I will get back to you as fast as I can, classes permitting.