Why not...

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Bob Krajcik, Dec 29, 2002.

  1. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    compare English versions, to see the differences between the many contradictory versions? Many of the contradictory version advocates have spoken out against that process, saying it is not a valid way to show the difference between versions. But look at it, for English speaking people, that shows itself a valid way to show the clear contradictions between versions.

    Using the English, the synonyms could be identified, so those places equivalent, or close, could be identified. As well, using the English it would be easy to identify the clear contradictions, the readings showing contrary meanings.

    As is very evident by reviewing the English language versions, the King James Version was the predominant English version, and its lineage was predominant, from the time it was introduced till 1881, and then the flood of contradictory versions started to became intense. The battle has not raged simply because of the use of synonyms. The battle for the lineage has been waged much longer than the battle for the English language rendering of those received readings.

    The Alexandrian lineage was promoted by two men and reintroduced in 1881. The two men were Westcott & Hort. That stream was introduced to the stream of the Antiochian lineage, causing God's people to say, "Yea, hath God said...".

    Further, those sources of the Alexandrian lineage, especially from Aleph and B, were not used for a period of about 1000 years. The preponderance of historical evidence shows the Received Text, or as called, Textus Receptus from the Antiocian lineage was the primary readings used from the first century days of the apostles till now, and is the source used for the King James Version Bible.

    The battle for the readings is certainly not new, not at all. For some background, consider the forth century Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian. Helvididius accused Jerome of using corrupt Greek manuscripts for Catholicism. Jovinian was so powerful in his work it took three from Rome, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, to unite in apposing him. This noble work was helpful to Luther when he came on the scene. It was helpful to us of our day, but notice this, there are still those that fight against the received readings and say there is no corrupt text and that say the battle over the readings being fought today has nothing to do with Rome. I refer those interested to “Which Bible?” pages 194-215, David Otis Fuller, D.D..

    That battle being fought, that began in the Garden of Eden, and was fought by others as it was fought by Helvidius is being fought now.

    Consider these words from a letter by David Otis Fuller:
     
  2. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the same time, wht not compare many of the words used in all the versions of the KJV and focus on the word Easter. An extremley poor tranlation error, repeated a number of times in the 1611 version.
     
  3. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are a having difficulty with the word Easter, perhaps you could start another thread on that and ask about its use. While the individual words used are certainly important, my thread is especially about a different foundation being used for the new versions, and how that different foundation changes the received text. The identity of the word of God is at issue with this.

    Some are saying the new foundation is correct, actually they are saying the new is the foundation that traces back to the apostles, but I disagree with that as it was not used for about one thousand years, was not part of the reformation readings, and shows evidence as being part of changes made about 350 AD, to the received readings. Actually, I am honestly not that concerned with the “original language” sources, as what was being used is no longer available.

    Others, along with me, are saying the lineage is what has been used predominantly till 1881, the Textus Receptus. I reject that which was not used for about 1000 years, but was introduced in 1881.

    There are some saying minor differences are all that is different with the new translations, that have no impact on substantial Christian doctrine. That is the point of contention.

    F. J. A. Hort doesn't agree about the changes being insignificant. He said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..."

    Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, that had been asked to work with them had some words about the significance of the changes. Smith was a Unitarian, denying the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Scriptures. He says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts."

    With these things, I am not the one that must ultimately convince another to change their position or be settled on their position. Plus, before one person or another is recognized as having the best argument, it must be realized, none of us posting here have gone on to glory and received a well done for what we have to say about these things.

    I am settled in my mind the King James Version is the received word of God in the English language, wholly true and wholly complete, nothing lacking. There are others convinced contrary, that say the English of the King James Version is too difficult, and such, but it is amazing, they change the readings based on using Greek, Hebrew and other such sources, plus they rely on different and contradictory manuscripts in those languages. I do not rely on such persons to be the channel of the word of God, but I rely on my King James Version Bible, the received readings in the English language. Again, my argument for the readings is not based on synonyms.
     
  4. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Were you aware that the KJV is not solely based on the "textus receptus"
     
  5. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Versions like the LITV follow the Textus Receptus more accurately than the KJV. What is not "wholly true and wholly complete, nothing lacking" about the LITV? Do you think it is more superior or less superior to the KJV?

    BTW, you can read/download the LITV at
    http://www.litvonline.com/
     
  6. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I am honestly not that concerned with the “original language” sources, as what was being used is no longer available. But, when you speak of Textus Receptus, do you mean sources back translated from the KJV itself, or other older sources still extant?

    I am convinced there was a “received text” available in 100 AD, and available in 200 AD, etc. and that its readings are now reflected in the King James Version. It is basic, Textus Receptus simply means the received text. You say the KJV is not representative, equivalent to the received text, and say it is. You are not going to stun me by saying the KJV does not agree with the Textus Receptus. That is what the whole controversy is about, i.e., what are the received readings.

    I am aware there are many contradictory and conflicting “original language" sources available today, but I am not aware of anyone that says they have the very sources that were "received" in ages past. You do understand “Textus Receptus” refers to received text; i.e., John 17:8?
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Bob, the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus" changed slightly over time. This is easily to demonstrate and verify. There have been minor word changes here and there. Why were these done? Which is correct? Why doesn't the KJV match any edition of the KJV 100%?
     
  8. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Versions like the LITV follow the Textus Receptus more accurately than the KJV. What is not "wholly true and wholly complete, nothing lacking" about the LITV? Do you think it is more superior or less superior to the KJV?

    BTW, you can read/download the LITV at
    http://www.litvonline.com/
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply. My answer to BenW applies for what you have said. The controversy is based on what the received text, i.e., the readings (John 17:8), actually are.
     
  9. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you recognize, readings contradictory in meanings of the KJV are being advanced now, and that the conflicting readings trace to 1881?
     
  10. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Those interested are encouraged to go back and read the first post I made on this thread.

    Those that disagree with what I have said, where do you say the sure word of God is, now?

    Do you have a single source that you can refer to? Or do you instead take different readings showing different meanings of the same passage for different days, with no certain readings being settled in your mind?

    Variant readings being available are a fact of life, but they do not cause me to stumble. Myself, I reject the variant readings. I trust my Bible, and don't need to look elsewhere for different and conflicting meanings.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is true when you compare the editions of the KJV over the last 400 years. It is true when you compare the KJV editions available today at your local bookstore. Settlign on the KJV has not solved this problem.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the same place it has always been ... in the multitude of the manuscripts.

    No one does. Even among the KJVs there are different readings depending which edition you choose.

    By accepting the KJV you have by default accepted the variant readings chosen by the translators. YOu have not escaped the problem. You have let someone else decide for you.

    As do I.
     
  13. H.R.B.

    H.R.B.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    Do you have a web site or something so that I can compare editions or could you post maybe some examples of differant readings between the editions?

    heidi
     
  14. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is true when you compare the editions of the KJV over the last 400 years. It is true when you compare the KJV editions available today at your local bookstore. Settlign on the KJV has not solved this problem.</font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Larry:

    You have been part of the movement to advance a different foundation. The foundation you advance is different than the foundation of the King James Version. W. J. A Hort, and Vance Smith admit to a difference.

    What happened to the sure word of God for those one thousand years your readings were lost?

    How do you account for the readings foundational to the King James Version being available for all those ages?
     
  15. Bob Krajcik

    Bob Krajcik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2000
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. Larry:

    It is some what difficult for me to take you serious. You said before, you believe the readings of the King James Version, but it seems you selectively believe the readings of the King James version. You say no one has a sure word of God, but instead the words are spread out and not to be identified. I do not accept such a thing. I trust my Bible, and need not look elsewhere to see if some other words will say different. I am not tossed about by all the variant readings.

    Now, you are trying to shift attention from the fact of the new foundation you work to advance, in place of the foundation used for the King James Version. You want to cloud the air with typesetting errata and updates to the type face, along with minor spelling corrections, and take the focus off the new and different in meaning foundation of what you want to advance. No thank you. The Bible is not broken and does not need changed.

    James White quote:
    "Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight."

    Now this reasoning of James White, and your reasoning is very flawed. The foundation of the King James Version and the King James Version itself is the oldest readings, so why do you go about telling people it is not to be trusted? Why do you tell people they need to look elsewhere, and to never settle on any readings? Have you been tossed about by wind of the scholars?
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate your sentiments but I think you have overestimated my influence.

    The same thing that happened to it during the later years of the monarchy when the word was tucked in a temple room -- nothing at all. The word of God is not affected by these variants. I think that is a major point that you are missing.

    I don't know that they were. There is absolutely no evidence that 1 John 5:7 was available before the 10th century. I think the question you must answer is why did God go to great lengths to preserve some very old manuscripts that were discovered relatively recently? Could it be that he intended some copies of his ancient word to be hidden until after the date of more reliable copying and printing so as not to have it changed? I think a good case can be made.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not selectively believe the readings of the KJV. The readings are not dealing with issues of belief but rather with issues of transmission. You have selected a certain set of readings. You trust your KJV (which you should). There is no substantial doctrinal or material difference in the texts, which is a testimony to the providential power of God in a non-miracle working age. I am not tossed about by variant readings. I don't know anyone who is.

    I am not referring in the least to typesetting errata and updates to the type face (though indeed those are incompatible with a perfect Bible). I am referring to the changing of words, the addition and subtraction of words and phrases.

    Since you brought up the typesetting and type face, and minor spelling changes (my teachers never knew what a minor spelling change was; to them it was either right or wrong), isn't it strange to you that some people argue that God perfectly preserved his word through 1500 years of hand copying but could not do the same with a printing press?? That is remarkable that people are not seeing through that issue. It is such a simple argument to refute. Consider it this way: We are accused of believing that God was unable to preserve his word perfectly (something we have never argued but in fact have argued against). You argue that God did preserve his word perfectly but needed multiple printings to get it right and even then it doesn't agree. Why does the God of the universe need multiple printings of the word to get it right? Why doesn't he get it to be the same?

    Did you suddenly find some new evidence that no one else knows about?? There is absolutely no, I mean zero, evidence to support this claim. The oldest readings we have (that we can place our eyes on) are very often the ones that are different from the KJV. Any statement such as the one above is a statement made about your conclusions, not your basis.

    I have never said this. I dare you to find a place where I said it. I have, to the contrary, affirmed the KJV as a version to be trusted becasue it is a faithful translation.

    I have said the former (as the KJV translators did) but I have not said the latter. The KJV translators told people to use a variety of senses to fully understand. I have said the same along with the added proposition that God desires us to have the word of God in our own language.

    No. I am driven by teh word of God.

    Bob, you have made some serious mistakes here. I hope they are the product of simple misreading of my posts. You have attributed to me a number of things I did not say. I would appreicate you being more careful to refer to what I do say, not what I do not say. That would help us in this discussion.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please delete ... accidental duplicate

    [ January 01, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  19. H.R.B.

    H.R.B.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,
    I would be much interested in seeing for myself the changes in the King James editions.

    Could you please give examples so I don't think you are just kidding.

    Invisible this morning,
    heidi
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a page with a list of some of the changes between teh 1611 and subsequent versions. Before blasting the source, realize these are not biased opinions; they are facts that can be checked by anyone who wants to take the time to check them. KJV REVISION IS NO "MYTH" !

    Towards the end notice the "Cambridge" and "Oxford" notation. That is a difference still found in modern KJVs. Compare a Thompson change next to a Scofield for instance and you will have to decide which of the two is really God's word. (In case you didn't notice, sin and sins are not the same. God only said one of them. Which one did he say? Likewise "he" and "ye" are not the same and makes a major difference in understanding. God only said one of them; which one did he say? -- by way of answer, according to the Hebrew, it is probably "sin" rather than sins; and "you/ye" is right, not "he;" You can look this up in the Hebrew text to verify it).

    This book is supposed to have more documentation" The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation by Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker, 1981.

    FHA Scrivener (of Scrivener's Text - the one made from the KJV) has an older book documenting the changes over the years as well as the places that the KJV differs from the TR. I believe this book also documents close to 2000 differences between the TR and the Majority Text.
     

Share This Page

Loading...