What sealed the deal for you?

The Particular Book.

I know what you're asking, and since you never answered my questions, I thought I'd poke a little fun.

 

Apology accepted and no sense in diggin up bones. I was poking fun at you though and you look like you can take it:wavey:

 

This is one of those things that I researched years ago, came to my conclusion, but cannot remember the particular arguments which "sealed the deal" for me.

The late Dr. Arthur Farstad was an elder at our church, and he held to the Majority Text position (in fact, was co-editor of the only edition of it that I know of). It was largely through his influence that I came to favor the Majority Text.

Wilbur Pickering was, and perhaps still is, active in the Majority Text Society (since Dr. Farstad's passing in 1998, I haven't heard much about the Majority Text Society).

One of the things I like about the NKJV is that in most of its editions, it has the readings from the Critical and Majority Texts, where they vary from the Textus Receptus.

 

I started with ignorance as a young lad, but through study I came to the CT position. I have heard arguments from both sides, but I am firmly convinced of the CT position. No particular resource led me to it, though.

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board.

Outta' curiosity, what do you mean by "most of its editions" of the NKJV? I'm not sure that is an accurate implication. To my knowledge, there has only been one "edition" of the NKJV, as the NKJV has had but one copyright, although there has been more than one printing. So the underlying text would not change.

Incidentally, Dr. Arthur M. Farstad was the Executive Editor of the NKJV, as well, but you probably already know that.

Correcting of any priniting typos does not really qualify as "another edition" for a copyrighted work, I do not believe.

There are several other versions which have undergone revisions, and do have more than one edition.

Ed

 

The King James Version Debate by DA Carson influenced me to change from the TR to the CT, which underlies most MV.

 

It was Jesus Himself....
His quotes in the NT does not match the quotes in the KJV OT...
Then I started researching the other quotes, and most are from the LXX...

Then I realized that the region of Israel he was from would have used the LXX more than the Masoretic at the time he walked on earth...

So, if Jesus didn't use the underlying text from the KJV OT... why should I claim it to be the only one I should use?

I read all the arguments, and it was one night, I got on my knees, and just asked God....
then it hit me, what did Jesus use?

I started researching that, and I quit being KJVO.

 

Tim,

Kudos for you. :thumbs:

 

Pastor Bob,

Great question by the way. :thumbs:

 

Ed, by "editions" I don't mean editions of the actual text of the translation (although there have been two of those), I mean, for example, a "text only" edition vs. a "reference edition," vs. a study Bible, etc. Even the first one that Dr. Farstad gave me, which was a very early copy and had no cross-references in it, had the MT and AU textual variants.

The first one the Dr. Farstad gave me, and the wide-margin edition that I use in most of my Bible study, is the first edition of the text (1981?). The Precious Moments Bibles that my kids got a few years later, plus most of the others I have, are the second edition (which I think was put out in 1985). I cannot point to any specific changes between the two editions, but I don't think it was just correction of typos.

 

I've never been a KJVO person, so I didn't have to be convinced of the value of MVs...they make sense without me having to whip out my grandma's dictionary.

Since learning Greek and more about textual criticism, people like Tischendorf, Bengel, Wescott, Hort, and Lightfoot, and the inadequacies of the TR convinced me that my initial impressions were correct.

 

I didn't even know there was a problem until about fifteen years ago, and I have been saved and in fundamental churches since 1974.

When forced, by current circumstances, to come to a stand it was though reading and studying both sides of the issue.

Come to think of it, there was one message back at Temple Seminary back around 1981, don't even remember the speaker, he was pastor from California, which led to my distrust of the critical texts. That still underlies much of my thinking today.

 

I looked forward to our second furlough and realized I might be asked some things, so I decided to research the issue. I read books on both sides, but something was missing, and that was a systematic treatment of the Word of God from the Word of God. I am very disappointed that so little thought has been given to what the Bible teaches about preservation.

First of all, I sought to rid myself of any prejudice on either side of the issue. Then I read through the KJV and marked in pink every single passage that dealt with the Word of God itself, marking in red particular passages that dealt with preservation. There are literally hundreds of such verses. I still have that Bible.

I then exegeted the passages and compiled the verses, noted trends and patterns, and put it all into an outline which ended up being 18 pages long. I highly urge this practice for all of you. After all, we are Baptists who believe in the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice, right? How can anyone possibly claim to have a Biblical position without studying thoroughly and systematically what the Bible says about a subject?

Here is a quiz to see if you really know the Bible on preservation.
(1) In what specific location is the Word of God perfectly preserved?
(2) Who was used by God in the OT to preserve the Word of God? (At least three names.)
(3) What class of people in the Bible is commanded to preserve the Word of God?
(4) Give two passages in the NT where a sentence is translated within the text from an original language.

If you can't answer these questions, forget it, you have no doctrine of preservation. I'm not trying to exalt myself. I'm just saying, the answers are all there in the Bible, but you must find them.

 

I'll have to go along with Tim, and the quotes of Jesus of OT verses.
And on the OT in my KJV, Ishmael to be a nation in Gen.17:20 but in Gen. 25:16, Ishmael to be nations and of all things for a nomadic people in the desert to have castles. But a little work in the Hebrew will show nation is correct, nations should be tribes and castles should be encampments or tents if I recall correctly. Then years later I came across John R. Rice's book, " Our God Breathed Book The Bible,". Dr. Rice just put into words and had a lot more support to what I had come up to in my study of the Bible.

So I use the KJV 90% or more of the time and the ASV 1901 about 9% of the time and all the rest about 1% of the time.

 

Amen, John! Not as easy as it sounds; perhaps impossible to achieve completely. This is what I'm trying to do currently. I am praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance. There is much material to read and many complex issues to be investigated. Perhaps I am not as brilliant as you fellows.

I intellectually agree with some points from both camps (which is why I can be found occassionally debating from both pro and con sides). I know criticism will befall me, but I confess that my final decision has not been made in favor of either the TR/MT or of the eclectic texts. But, I have concluded that holding either position exclusively must ultimately be held entirely by faith.

 

John,

You have the makings of a good book there. I realize that it is your private thoughts but many could benefit from your research, I believe.

 

Just a little clarification...

Although it may be a bit off topic, I just wanted to clarify something I mentioned in my reply #12.

All of my copies of the NKJV list the copyright date of 1982. However Dr. Farstad in his book The New King James Version in the Great Tradition speaks of "The Nashville Convocation," convened in August of 1984, whose purpose was "to improve the NKJV with enhancements of English vocabulary and style, smoother use of connectives, and more consistency between parallel passages." It must have been the fruit of this effort that he spoke of when he mentioned the later edition (on at least one ocassion he approached me after a sermon and said that my criticism of a passage in the NKJV was based on the early edition and was changed in the later edition - I wish I could remember the passage!)

 

For me, it was hearing great teachers on the radio. All I had been exposed to since I was saved had been the KJV. I had heard of the NIV, but only bad things.

Anyway, I started listening to Moody radio. I noticed that the scriptures they read were a little different than my KJV. They said the same thing, but were much easier to understand. I did some research into it and discovered the many different translations. I started using the NKJV about then.

I had had encounters with some KJVO people before, but since I was using KJV it wasn't an issue. Once I moved away from a pure KJV stance, I came under attack for it by the same people. just for not using "their" book? Once I came here to the BB I found even more of the same venom. I was just as bitter against this stance as they were against mine for a while, but God is gracious and helped me see that that wasn't the way to be.

I still carry and use the NKJV as my main. I also use the NASB, HCSB, Amplified, and the KJV. God's word is God's word, no matter who translated it or the date inside the cover.