What makes 1535 Coverdale's a "great Bible?"

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread, stilllearning posted: "But in the same breath, I said that there were many other great Bibles of that time:
    (William Tyndale's Bible), (Miles Coverdale's Bible), (John Wycliffe’s Bible), (The Bishop's Bible), (The Geneva Bible) etc.
    So in the strictest since [sense], I am not really KJVO."

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    In your opinion, what qualities or characteristics make the 1535 Coverdale's Bible a "great Bible?" Would the same qualities or characteristics in a translation today make it a "great Bible?"

    Have you ever read the 1535 Coverdale's Bible? Would you recommend the use of Coverdale's Bible?
     
  2. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally, I consider the MCB a "great Bible" first and foremost for close to the same reason that I consider the WYC to be a "great Bible." It is the first complete English Bible tendered in the "Modern English" phase of the English language, which I consider very important.

    To the next three questions, Yes they would, were it possible, which it is not, for the reason stated above.
    No, the only Bible I have read completely through is a KJV.
    And sometimes, when the MCB gives the most accurate readings, IMO.

    I generally would not recommend genuine copies of most of these old Bibles to anyone, and although I certainly would love to have some of them, really can't see the value of spending anywhere from $10-100+K that one would likely have to spend for the genuine article, which would be effectively destroyed with repeated use, as opposed to the cost of a fascimile reproduction of these old Bibles.

    For quick example(s):

    http://greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/featured1612to1619.htm

    http://greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/genevato1599.htm

    http://greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bibles-books/oldestnonenglish.htm

    I simply don't have anywhere near that kind of money (One of these easily topped six figures, and if I did, not being a collector or dealer, I can think of much better uses with which to put it), although I probably cough up enough for the much more reasonably priced reproductions. And the on-line versions can be accessed, for even less, including for no cost to us, in many of these cases, as well.

    Let's see - $0 vs. $60+K?

    Hmmmm! Well, anyway I know which way I would go on this one.

    Ed
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I find it interesting that a KJV defender can describe the 1535 Coverdale's Bible as a "great" Bible when it likely differs more from the KJV than some modern English translations such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, or KJ2000.


    Andrew Edgar pointed out that “the changes that Coverdale made on Tyndale’s renderings are numerous” (Bibles of England, p. 107). Some of those changes may be considered improvements, but a number of them are considered to be changes for the worse. Edgar also observed that “it has been complained by critics that the freeness of Coverdale’s renderings make his Bible in places a paraphrase rather than a strict translation” (Ibid., p. 104).


    In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade noted that though in 1535, Coverdale "normally says repent, or sometimes amend, he ten times has '(do) penance'" (p. 15). The rendering "penance" can be found in Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20. In his prologue to his 1535 Bible, Coverdale wrote: "Be not thou offended therefore (good Reader) though one call a scribe, that another calleth a lawyer; or elders, that another calleth father & mother; or repentance, that another calleth penance or amendment." Can KJV-only advocates explain the Holy Spirit’s role in this rendering “penance” being in this earlier English Bible of which the KJV was a revision?


    From the Latin Vulgate, Coverdale's Bible has the rendering "lamies" at Lamentations 4:3. From the influence of the Vulgate, Coverdale’s has “Alexandria” instead of “No” (Jer. 46:25). Instead of "mown grass" at Psalm 72:6, Coverdale's has "fleece of wool." At Psalm 28:8, Coverdale's has "strength of his people" in agreement with the LXX, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate while the KJV has only "strength." At Psalm 13:6, Coverdale's has a sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea, I will praise the name of the LORD the most highest." Coverdale's Bible has "upon me" after "call" at Psalm 20:9 that is not in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible adds "before him" after "rejoice" at Psalm 2:11. Does Coverdale’s Bible have any “foreign matter?“ Instead of "balm" at Jeremiah 8:22, Coverdale's has "treacle." In agreement with LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, Coverdale's reads "the God of Gods appeareth unto thee in Zion" in the second half of verse seven of Psalm 84. "A cock ready to fight" is Coverdale's rendering at the beginning of Proverbs 30:31. Coverdale's rendered Daniel 3:25 as follows: "the fourth is like an angel to look upon."


    The first edition of Coverdale's Bible had the book of Baruch located between Lamentations and Ezekiel (Bruce, The English Bible, p. 60).
     
  4. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Initial response removed by me, because stilllearning has been sick.

    Ed
     
    #4 EdSutton, Feb 15, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2009
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Logos1560

    You said........
    Now I know that I have been sick, but this seems vaguely familiar.?.
    (Oh, by the way I am feeling much better now.)

    Are were finished talking about the Wycliffe Bible?
    This discussion, will head in “almost” the same direction.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Lets skip to the chase:

    (1) My contention is, that all those old Bibles(some better than others:)
    Are all better, than any of the Bible, that you can buy today:(made in the last 100 years or so).

    (2) And the proof of my contention is, that every Bible produced after 1893 or so, are not as good as the ones produced before, because of you know who(B.B.W.).

    We have already been over this before, several times.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now, this is my opinion: But it is based upon the fact, of the “attitude change”, that took place, in 1893.

    Now some might ask......
    “What difference does a scholar’s attitude make, when he is translating the Bible?”

    Well, if the said scholar believes that God’s Word has been lost, and that everyone is only making an educated guess as to what God’s Word originally said, then that attitude will give each scholar and Bible publisher great latitude, as to the words they put in their Bible.

    I prefer not to study a Bible, that has just been made up, by somebody making an educated guess.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now, we are about to embark, upon the subject, of “which New Testament manuscripts should be trusted”?

    And since there seems to be some confusion in the minds of some people here, about the meanings of the “TR” or the “received text”: Let me cut through that confusion, and identify them as, the “majority Byzantine manuscripts”.

    These are the texts that were fully accepted as God’s Word, up until 1893. And I still trust them today.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I think that I have said enough.

    If you don’t mind, lets continue our discussion, from here.
     
  6. monk

    monk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Never was a big fan but I prefer the Gillian years
     
    #6 monk, Feb 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2009
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    You have provided no valid evidence for your "contention." You are entitled to your opinion, but if you expect anyone else to consider it you should provide some valid evidence for it. You do not seem to have read or examined those old Bibles very carefully if you have read them at all.

    Specific examples have already been provided where "those old Bibles" [pre-1611] are not better than any of the Bibles that you can buy today made in the last 100 years or so.

    There are English translations that you can buy today such as the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the KJ21, and the KJ2000 that are more in agreement with the KJV at many verses than "those old [pre-1611] Bibles." There are English translations that you can buy today that are definitely better and more accurate at many verses than those "old [pre-1611] Bibles" and even than the KJV. In some cases, they are better than the KJV because they update archaic words or phrases that may not be intelligible to many present English readers. In other cases, they may be better than the KJV because they are more accurate and faithful to the same underlying original language texts on which the KJV was based.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have not recommended the Critical Greek text. I am willing to accept the majority Byzantine text. Do you actually accept it when it disagrees with the KJV?

    There are a few places where the KJV does not seem to follow the majority Byzantine text, but instead seems to follow the "educated guess" of Erasmus, Beza, or the Latin Vulgate. Do you accept the "educated guess" of Erasmus or Beza in some cases?

    According to KJV defender Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83). William W. Combs maintained: “Beza simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he maintained that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389).

    The earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be“ at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.” Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).
     
    #8 Logos1560, Feb 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2009
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I can't do that. (Responding to your last sentence, first.) Once again, you have made some purported "facts" that are untrue, that I will address. Not that I really think they will get any more traction, than several other things I have addressed, in the past, you understand. However, the ' "church historian" part of my persona will simply not allow historical inaccuracies to stand unchallenged, for the benefit of these who may actually read these threads.
    I notice you did not bother to answer any of my own questions or comments about the WYC, which may be found in a few of my own posts, not that this particularly surprises me.
    Okay, I'll bite.
    So far, so good! One can have any personal contention or preference one chooses, I'd say.
    Sorry, we just left the road, here. Your own opinion, notwithstanding. For this is nothing more than your opinion, to which you are entitled, but does not objectively "prove" or even give any evidence to anything (except in your own mind), apart from your own continued distaste for Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. Merely repeating something ad nausea does not make it any "fact" in any case. However, it is a fact, that I previously asked you to show something from the actual works and words of Dr. Warfield, preferably from either The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible or Biblical and Theological Studies to support your contention, but notice you have either been unwilling or unable to do so, apparently. (In fairness, you did post two links, which I did attempt to access, but that link did not work, hence I was not able to view them. I suspect that this was because you had copied these links from another site, FTR, as I attempted to post them very shortly after you had posted them, and I honestly doubt that both had ceased to exist in less than two days.) Actually, I shall quote my own exact paragraph, responding to one of your posts, where I asked this, here:
    BTW, despite your own claims, I seriously doubt, given your many posts that I have read, that you would really consider either the RV (1885) or DBY which was completed by John Nelson Darby, although published posthumously, sometime after his own death in 1882, as anywhere near a "good Bible" as you phrased it. FTR, The DBY NT initially dates well before 1875, if my memory is correct. Incidentally, Darby also translated the Bible into German, French and most likely into Italian, although this last one seems to have been lost.
    :rolleyes:
    Nope!! Once again, opinion (and unsupported implication) is being foisted as a 'fact'.
    I'll not comment on your 'cute' ad hominem about making something up, other than to note the same.

    However, I suggest you are the one that is confused, as to the "received text" vs. "majority Byzantine manuscripts" in this instance. In fact, Hodges & Farstad have noted there are some 1000 translatable differences between the "TR" and "MT" and Pierpont & Robinson have made a similar observation. It is simly patently false to attempt to say the two are the same. (FTR, the above named four published actual Majority Text editions of the NT, and Dr. Robinson is currently the Senior NT Professor at Southeastern Baptist Seminary. (The other three are deceased, and the recent passing of Hodges was noted on the BB.) In the words of the late Dean Burgon - "Very nearly -- not quite!" (my emphasis). FTR, I also trust the MT. Stange how the OT MSS never seem to get into this discussion, nearly as much as the NT MSS.
    Now, maybe we can. We shall see.

    Ed
     
    #9 EdSutton, Feb 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2009
  10. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi EdSutton

    Once again, here it is..........In BB Warfield’s own words.

    ===================================================================
    I take no pleasure at all, in badmouthing any man of God, but this is serious.

    This post has NOTHING to do, with me “proving that I am right”; But it has everything to do with the attitude that most people have about the Word of God.
    --------------------------------------------------
    It all starts with the Westminster Confession of faith:
    http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

    And what it said about the Bible.........

    “Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture

    I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

    II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.[7]

    III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.[8]”
    --------------------------------------------------
    In the late 1800's, Satan had so hated the previous 200 years(because of the respect the KJV had), that he had crackpots, coming out of the woodwork, attacking the Bible in every imaginable way.

    Then BB Warfield took a great stand for the Bible, in declaring it to be “the actual Word of God”, and therefore shutting the mouth’s of those attacking it.

    But then, in 1893, BB Warfield(during his tenure at Princeton), went about to re-interpret the Westminster Confession of faith(Chapter I “Of the Holy Scripture”), in such a way, that he ended up doing greater harm to God’s Word, than all these other men, could have ever done.
    --------------------------------------------------
    The Church, had previously interpreted this first chapter of the WCF as saying.......

    “For Christians who subscribe to the Westminster standards, the distinction drawn by WCF I.8 between the "immediate inspiration" of the autographa and the providential preservation of manuscript copies provides a sound, biblical foundation upon which one can confidently declare his allegiance to God's inspired Word while not neglecting the necessity for text-critical studies.”

    In other words, the copies, were as inspired as the originals.

    Therefore God has perfectly preserved His Word for us.
    --------------------------------------------------
    But in 1893 when Warfiled gave his survey of the WCF,

    THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND ITS WORK
    BY
    Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield

    Here is what he said about the accurate copies of the original autographs......
    http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm#LinkTarget_18613

    “The difference between the infallibility or errorlessness of immediate inspiration and the fallibility or liability to error of men operating under God’s providential care alone, is intended to be taken at its full value. But it is intended to assert most strongly, first, that the autographs of Scripture, as immediately inspired, were in the highest sense the very Word of God and trustworthy in every detail;........”

    He goes on, for dozens of pages, expounding basically how God’s Word has been lost(because the autographs of Scripture are gone) , and somehow, we have to find it.

    Here is the main link.........
    http://www.apuritanatheart.com/warwest.htm
    --------------------------------------------------
    Because of BB Warfield’s new interpretation of the WCF, the Church’s perception of the Bible has been turned upside down.

    Before BB Warfield’s statement: God and His Word, were the final authority!
    -------
    But after this statement, man and his critical interpretation, has now become the authority.

    This has nothing to do with the KJV, but it has everything to do with God’s Word and it authority.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I have said, several times, how none of us, should be trusting “modern scholarship”.
    And this is why.

    Because of BB Warfield’s work, modern scholars, have placed themselves above the authority of the Bible(the accurate copies of the original autographs).

    It is not there fault, it is just what they have been taught!
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is the second time stilllearning has anonymously enlisted this 'interpretation' and I still don't agree with his paraphrase that the mystery author was stating that "the copies, were as inspired as the originals". I do not think this quotation, nor the WCF, affirm that copies are "inspired".

    Let's break this undocumented quotation down into five smaller portions. The first phrase is self-evident --
    For Christians who subscribe to the Westminster standards ...
    The next portion --
    ... the distinction drawn by WCF I.8 between the "immediate inspiration" of the autographa and the providential preservation of manuscript copies...
    There is no question a "distinction" is made; the two elements being distinguished in the WCF are the "autographa" (writer's originals) and surviving "manuscript copies". The "providential" oversight is for entire documents ("preservation" is not extended to individual words in this quotation, nor in I.8 which lacks the term 'words' completely). Now, this explicit distinction --
    ... provides a sound, biblical foundation upon which one can confidently declare...
    This simply means that the WCF correctly articulates reasons based on Scripture thus allowing a particular "declaration". The specific declaration that can be confidently made in the context of WCF I.8 is (in part) --
    ... allegiance to God's inspired Word ...
    But a significant qualification is affixed to this "allegiance" (the rest of the declaration) --
    ... while not neglecting the necessity for text-critical studies.
    The condition added here is that textual criticism is recognized as essential.

    So, my summary for the entire quotation would be that: A Christian can still hold to the doctrine of inspired Scripture despite recognizing the need for textual criticism of manuscript copies (which are distinct from the autographa). Why? (the reason is not included in this quotation)

    Because the WCF itself states is that Scripture was preserved in ancient languages and subsequent translations are sufficient as genuine Scripture (but without declaring "inspired" status to manuscript copies). Here is section I.8 (my underline) --
    VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
     
  12. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congratulations!

    You have just copied and re-posted almost verbatim (complete with all the spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, which my alter ego, Language Cop has noted) this post:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1339313&postcount=39

    Incidentally, I should have noted you copied this, because a total copy & paste procedure often shortens 'copied' links, as here, prior to my looking it up.

    Not only does this post not address my questions to you, much of it, if not most, can also be found here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1303519&postcount=130 This post, incidentally, was also a supposed response to one of mine.

    Once again, FTR, the links do not work 4 1/2 hrs after you gave them (nor did they then some 2 ago, as I just posted, or even 4 mos. ago), thus I really wish you would acknowledge the source of this now three time posted supposed information, that you are purporting to be your own. As the late Fred Rogers (himself a seminary graduate and ordained Presbyterian minister and trained both as a pastor and in music composition where he wrote more than 200 songs, BTW) might have said. "Boys and girls- can you spell 'P-l-a-g-i-a--r- i-s-m,' today??"

    You seem to have little problem impugning others, particularly the late B. B. Warfield, while at the same time, ignoring historical corrections that several, besides myself, have made. Incidentally, I strongly suspect much that has been offered about "Warfiled" (sic) is not your own study and research, but are the contusions of another, which views you have adopted, simply because of the wording and language I see.) I have noted some of this, in past posts, BTW.

    Similar to what another once posted, for one who claims to be "still learning" perhaps you should really consider changing your 'handle' as the 'learning' bit is apparently proceeding at a very slow pace.

    You have said (and implied) this was not about the KJV (more times than I can easily count, actually). I partly agree, and I have not even mentioned the KJV in this post, except here. This thread is (supposed to be) about the entire MCB, which means, BTW, it is not about ONLY a single verse or two or three of at least (some) questionable, textual genuineness.

    "Nowhutahmean??"

    Ed
     
    #12 EdSutton, Feb 16, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2009
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to both Hodges/Farstad and Pierpont/Robinson, there are some ~ 1000 translatable

    differences in the NT, between the MT and TR, which number I would suggest is quite a few. ;)

    Ed
     
  14. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Everyone

    Did all of you miss...."the first line of this post!"

    Once again, here it is..........In BB (sic) Warfield’s own words.




    You asked for it again, so I gave it to you "again"!
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    No my brother, you did not give it again. I have already told you twice that the links you give are not to be found - you know the "404" bit, and all that.

    The total of what could possibly be the words of Dr. B. B. Warfield that is to be found in your post, are these words. FTR, they happen to be well down in the post, and not the words you "leadoff" with, as well.
    This is also entirely consistent with what you have posted of how "The church had previously interpreted this first chapter of the WCF" and the Westminster Confession also, differentiates between "immediate inspiration" and the 'keeping' of Scripture. You (or more likely the one you are quoting) is/are the one drawing the conclusion you keep proffering.

    Incidentally, the idea of any "text-critical studies" is not mentioned in the Westminster Confession, at all, but is offered as the 'historic' view of the church concerning Scripture.

    Regardless of this, the view you are offering is not close to that of the KJV translators, either. They offered this view:
    I could go on, but there is not one word of the translators that they considered their work as flawless and/or final.

    How is it then, that some supposed "new revelation" about this fact is being offered by those of this paticular preference for a version?? And at the same time, denying the continuing efforts of others who are following (or have followed) the same path as did the KJV translators?

    You simply don't get to have it both ways, my friend.

    Now - :sleeping_2:

    Ed
     
  16. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Ed

    You are trying to cloud, the point that I am making.

    You said.......
    “I could go on, but there is not one word of the translators that they considered their work as flawless and/or final.”

    I have never said, that the work of “the translators” was flawless.
    (And you know it.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    We are talking about the Bible.
    (1) You have been saying, that “we no longer have a perfect Bible”.
    (2) And I have been saying, that “God has preserved His Word for us”.

    This is the whole issue.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Also, I have been saying, that your opinion about the Bible(that it has been lost), is a relatively new one, because BBW started this trend, only about 100 year ago.

    Now the document, in which BBW made this terrible attack upon the Bible, is called.....
    “THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY AND ITS WORK”

    Unfortunately, this document, is no longer available online(that I can find).

    But this really isn’t a problem, because the point that you are making now, is that I have not shown you proof, that the Church “ever” believed that we had a perfect Bible.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Ed, you weary me.

    No matter what direction that I come from, in my contention God has preserved His Word for us, you seem to find a way “wiggling your way out of it”.

    In your last post, you seem to be saying that I must be wrong, about my stand on the Bible, because of the “spacing”, that I am using in my posts.

    I know, that this is an unforgivable sin, but I am sorry.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Oh, by the way...

    I was going to end this response, with a remark about the words you misspelled, in your last post. But that sword, cuts both ways.
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did make a typo, with the word "paticular", I fully admit, not recognizing this until it was too much later to go back and correct.

    The reason I made the corrections, in your post (including the spacing bit), is primarily because you had posted the same thing three different times, without even so much as 'proof-reading' your own posts, apparently.

    You might note I said nothing about these printing typos, the first two times you posted this.

    I note you have just said this about me. "You have been saying, that “we no longer have a perfect Bible”." This is not true, for I have never said this, at least that I can recall. If I have, in fact, said this, would you mind please showing me where I supposedly said this?? Or does this little correction also "weary you"?

    You also said: "And I have been saying, that “God has preserved His Word for us”." Fine. I have not said anything different, that I can recall. Again, if it is not too 'wearying' would you mind showing me where I said anything different? (With some 8K posts, if I have been saying this, it be fairly easy to spot, I'd offer.) I do fully believe God has preserved His written word for us, BTW.

    You also made this false impugning of my own position with this question and implication, 2 mos. ago:
    "Nothing happened," FTR, and I responded with this.
    BTW, I would offer that that post I responded to, contained at least two false conclusions about what I was saying, that I never actually responded to, simply because if I did respond to every misrepresentation and/or conclusion offered by everyone about what I believe and say, I would have time for nothing else.

    In fact, I have already posted numerous times that I am in full 'lock-step' agreement with the translators of the KJV, as they stated in preface of that version in "that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

    By contrast, you have offered that you do not trust any of the, as I term them, "so-called, self-styled scholars" enough to even write a gospel tract, yet you also say you have no problem offering your own ideas as to what the Scriptures say in your own use. Pretty high opinion of your own abilities, I'd say, especially considering you are on record as having impugned the intelligence of another poster, by suggesting he was not smart, because of his choice (or lack of the same) for a particular version.

    (BTW, the reason I often use the phrase of "so-called, self-styled scholars" is not because I doubt their abilities, at all, from any perspective. It is because there is nowhere any objective standard as to what constitutes 'scholarship,' or how one attains such a standard. You might notice I normally use the title of "Dr." for anyone possessing such a title, be it earned or honorary. I am one of the few individuals who normally post on this board to ascribe this title to such varied individuals as Drs. John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, Miles Smith, John Calvin, Gail Riplinger, John Rainolds, B. B. Warfield, Bob Griffin, Peter Ruckman, Edward F. Hills, Arthur Farstad, Thomas Cassidy, Benjamin Blaney, Thomas Paris, John R. Rice, etc., etc., et al., without differentiating among any, and in fact, have made a number of posts where I mention a group of a dozen or so individuals who have been duly awarded this honor, some of whom had little to no formal education, and most of whom did not so much as finish any college, including such as Drs. H. A. Ironside, John Gill, and P. H. Mell, to name only three, here. Does this mean that I would ascribe exactly equal abilities to all these?? Of course not, for that would be ridiculous, on it's face. However, this practice is known as "respect," FTR, and I submit that it is just as deserving for one individual, as another. The disagreement with the position(s) of any individual does not equal to a lack of showing respect for that individual, in any way, IMO.)

    You have made multiple statements that have been shown to be in factual error, including some about the very version of Scripture you claim to prefer. These have often been duly corrected by other posters, including myself, at times. While I'm fairly sure I have unwittingly made enough, myself, I will suggest that I have been called to task regarding this fewer times, in three years and 8K posts, than you have, in the last three months and <500 posts.

    When you do post what I (or any other) believe(s), or (usually) find to be factual error, it becomes like trying to nail JELL-O® to a wall, to even get an admission of a factual error. I do not dislike you (or any other poster, for that matter) in any way, but I admit I do detest duplicity in any form, from anyone. Your continued assault on what Dr. B. B. Warfield believed and taught, regarding the inspiration of Scripture is something that I find to be "wearying." I have asked either two or three times for any quotes from Dr. Warfield from his well known books on this subject. None have been so much as suggested, yet this continues. All I have seen is some "hack and glue" job from some unidentified web-site, and links that do not work. FTR, I do not recall supporting Dr. Warfield on any other theological position, anywhere, and I have said I do not agree with much of what the Westminster Confession says. I am neither Calvinist or Presbyterian, in any form.

    It is one thing to hold an opinion. It is an entirely different thing to attempt to foist it as a 'fact,' IMO. One example of this would be that the Bible is 'perfectly' preserved in a particular 'hard-copy' of one book, in English. While I would assume that the idea is OK, the Bible simply never says this anywhere, in any version that I'm aware of (nor does any legitimate version I'm aware of make any claim to be any "be-all, end-all" version), and, in fact, the Bible was never written in this manner, and could not even possibly have been until at least ~ 100 A.D., with the completion of revelation and the other later NT books. It is a simple fact that no two Biblical manuscripts of any considerable length are in complete agreement with every "jot and tittle" of lettering, spelling and wording. Much less was there ever any legitimate Greek or Hebrew "text" from one manuscript, and there were already at least three editions, none of which were identical in every detail of what became known as the TR before William Tyndale translated the NT, the first part of the Bible to be so translated into "modern English," for only one quick example.

    I could go on for several pages about misrepresentation(s), but have established this enough for now, IMO.

    Sorry to weary you so much with a few details and corrections.

    Ed
     
    #17 EdSutton, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me add a couple of more things to the last post, given that it would not print.

    Your own position is abundantly clear to me, and if it were not, would be clear to me after seeing this comment I ran across when looking for something else, despite your own protests that your position is being misrepresented.
    While I would not presume to suggest you or anyone else necessarily agree with the views of Dr. Robinson, I can assure you that any "agenda" of Dr. Robinson is hardly hidden. (What a gracious implication of motives, BTW!) :rolleyes:

    I will suggest Dr. Robinson is now, with the passings over the last decade or so of Drs. Arthur Farstad, and William G. Pierpont, and only two months ago of Prof. Zane Hodges, likely the premier champion and advocate of the Greek (Byzantine) Majority Text, now with two or three editions of this text, which he initially co-authored with the late Dr. William G. Pierpont, in print. Uh- you do claim to support and/or advocate "the majority Byzantine texts," do you not??

    (Even though it appears you do not know how they read in I. Jn. 5:7! Strange! Somehow, I would have thought one fluent in Greek would know how the MT reads here.) :rolleyes:

    Back to the main thought. I'll check on whether or not you support the Byzantine text..

    Yup!! Sho' do!!

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1348344&postcount=52

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1367160&postcount=84

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1368248&highlight=Byzantine;+majority#post1368248

    BTW, you can find him as the Senior NT Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

    And finally, with some 8K posts, I suggest it would be extremely difficult for me to even attempt to "wiggle out" of anything, including my own preferences for the KJV (my 1967 edition) and NKJV, which are the two that I normally prefer and use, and I am long ago on record as saying this.

    Ed
     
    #18 EdSutton, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
  19. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    15
    When all is said and done, more is said than done. (copied)

    God said what He meant, and meant what He said. (copied)

    All academic prittle prattle notwithstanding, God is always right--we are usually wrong, by nature. God saves, even in Swahili. (by me, probably not original)

    Let God be found true----------------and every man a liar. (Paul, the apostle)

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Matthew Verschuur (a strong Cambridge edition KJV advocate) in an article entitled GOODLY WORDS: BETTER ANSWERS TO KING JAMES BIBLE QUESTIONS which can be found on his website includes his answer to the question: IS THE TRADITIONAL OR MAJORITY TEXT ULTIMATELY DEFENDABLE? (my bold) --
    Among King James Bible people there has been a confusion of terms. Firstly, a vast body of substantially agreeing witnesses to the New Testament text can be found. This family of manuscripts and other evidence can be called the Antioch, Byzantine, Traditional or Majority Text family.

    However, at the Reformation, the makers of single representative texts, which may be called Textus Receptus Editions, did not rely totally on the Traditional Text family. They also considered the Western (Vulgate) readings and the readings from the Alexandrian or Minority Text family. Now the Roman Catholics were concerned with producing standard editions of the Western Text family, and years later, modernists created critical editions based on the Minority Text family. The Textus Receptus Editions portrayed a “gathered text” (i.e. gathered from the truthful witnesses in history) that emphasised or favoured the Traditional Text family. Minor differences could be found in the various editions of the Textus Receptus, but the gathered group of these editions has also been generally called “The Textus Receptus”. In fact, that is what is the usual meaning of Textus Receptus, Received Text or TR.

    To be “TR Only” with respect to the Greek text is illogical, since there is no final representative of the Greek Received Text. The correct view is that the English Bible is an independent form of the Textus Receptus, and further, that it is the final form of the Received Text.

    There have been attempts by King James Bible users to create a new edition of the Textus Receptus that is based entirely on detailed and limited study of the Traditional Text, which have been designed to “correct” the King James Bible. However, carrying this out would be contrary to the King James Bible doctrine because the King James Bible is the final gathered text and thus deviates from the Textus Receptus and the Traditional Text Family in those places where they are in error. As a consequence, the critical edition, known as the Majority Text, and other such works are really peripheral to the King James Bible only movement, and would tend to reject aspects of the doctrine, as well as remove certain verses such as 1 John 5:7.
     
    #20 franklinmonroe, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...