1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The inspiration controversy - part 2

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Askjo, Aug 30, 2004.

  1. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I apologize for any inaccurate information that I presented. The information was secondary, thus, I had no way to verify it's correctness.

    The following, however, is firsthand information from The Bible in Translation - Ancient and English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger, whom many would consider exclusively "authoritative" on this issue.

    Metzger says that the Old Syriac "began to circulate in Syria" "at the close of the second or third century." Pg. 26

    The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe.
     
  2. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    Metzger says that the Old Syriac "began to circulate in Syria" "at the close of the second or third century." Pg. 26

    The bottom line is, there is much evidence to support the fact that early texts that parallel the Received Text did exist much earlier than Critical Text advocates would like us to believe.
    </font>[/QUOTE]There's quite a bit about the origin of the Peshitta we don't know, but one thing that we're fairly certain of is that there's no evidence to support the existence of the Peshitta before the late-4th C. All the evidence we have from the Scriptural quotations of the pre-5th C. Syriac Fathers tells us that they used either Tatian's Diatessaron (the popular Syriac text of the time) or the Old Syriac. None of them used the Peshitta, which is passing strange if (1) it existed, and (2) it were the "received text" of the Syriac church.

    The bottom line is that there's no evidence whatsoever of the existence of anything that could be called "THE Received Text" in *any* language before Erasmus essentially created it in the early 16th C.
     
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I will conceed to this statement. I agree that there was nothing that was called "The Received Text" before Erasmus, but Erasmus didn't created the text; he compiled the text from at least 10 extant manuscripts.

    I will stand by my quote above:
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Anyone who has spent much time on a message board should know better than to quote secondary sources when the primary sources are readily available. Therefore, I believe that a simple apology would be much more in order than an "apology" followed by a flimsy excuse, especially considering the importance of this issue.

    It has been my personal experience that the argument for the superiority of the Byzantine text-type is most often “defended” by persons who are woefully misinformed and who are so desperate to “prove” their theory that they commonly resort dishonesty. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in believing what they have to say, and much more so in quoting them.

    For a good, credible defense of the Byzantine text-type, see:

    Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

    I should probably add here that although Prof. Sturz does present an excellent defense of the Byzantine text-type, he does, nonetheless, favor the Alexandrian text-type.
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    The word "parallel" in this statement without a qualifying adverb modifying the word is, in my opinion, misleading.
     
  6. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    MVs were from copies of copies of Alexandria MSS. The KJV was from copies of copies of TR MSS. The history of the TR began with the apostolic period. It began with the manuscripts that were copied and recopied by the churches. </font>[/QUOTE]The NKJV, WEB, are just 2 MV examples of translations that did not use the Alexanrian MSS.

    1cross+3nails=4given [​IMG]
     
  7. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    CraigByTheSea: "For a good, credible defense of the Byzantine text-type, see:

    "Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

    Actually in that book Sturz only defends the early *existence* of the Byzantine Texttype, claiming that the Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine all were in existence by the late 2nd century.

    CraigByTheSea: "I should probably add here that although Prof. Sturz does present an excellent defense of the Byzantine text-type, he does, nonetheless, favor the Alexandrian text-type."

    Actually not. Sturz was a peculiar bird, in that he did not think the autograph text could be restored by any text-critical means. Rather, assuming the mutual co-existence of the three major texttypes by the end of the 2nd century, Sturz felt that a close approximation to the original text could be made by following a 2-out-of-3 texttype method. However, he would not dare call this resultant text the "originals" or anything close to such, but only a "Second Century Greek text".

    By this means, Sturz constructed his own so-called "Second Century Greek text" of Matthew (no other books). But in the end, the overall text of Sturz is more Byzantine than any other type of text, simply because Byz+Alex and Byz+Western readings far outnumber Alex+Western readings (there is no question, of course, when Byz+Alex+Western agree, which is 90% of the time).
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How about "significantly?"
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe a factor often overlooked, especially by the KJVOs, is the POWER OF GOD. If the Sinaiticus mss is so evil, why did God allow Tischendorf to find and preserve it? Why was it not burnt centuries ago? Same with Vaticanus...the RCC certainly wasn't using it. Could it be GOD knows a little more than those who would try to limit Him in His providing of His word?
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this is an oft-used arguement to support argument for KJVOism, then why wouldn't that same argument support the idea that a translation made in today's language, using the TR as the source text, is of the same inspirational weight as the KJV?
     
  11. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course you do because you believe only what you want to believe.
    This has been documented. King James and his men and "bishops" (at least two of whom were on the translation committee (Richard Bancroft, Lancelot Andrews) actively participated in the burning of two men for the crime of "heresy" one of them was an anabaptist.

    Henry 8th (Church of England founder) had Tyndale burned at the stake for translating the Scriptures into English.

    Several others lost various body members for criticizing the AV. The crime for advocating the removal of the apocrypha from the "Holy Bible" AV1611 was one year in prison.

    These facts have all been documented.

    The Church of England inherited this propensity for bloodshed from their parent Church, the Church of Rome.

    HankD
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Michelle, you still haven't addressed which version of the kjV is the "perfect, inspired" Word of God. The 1611? The 1769? :confused: Which version of the version? The Cambridge? The Oxford? :confused: Your faith is based on a flawed premise. You refuse to answer these questions because you cannot. There is no such thing as "continued inspiration" :eek: and it's not even taught by the kjVERSION. The kjVERSION is no more inspired than is the NASB, NIV or any other version. [​IMG]

    AVL1984
     
Loading...