WHy Would Anyone Think That...

It is literally impossible to even be TR-only in Japan. All modern Japanese Bibles are from critical texts. The only version in Japanese history done from only the TR was the 1928 Nagai translation, which was in classical Japanese and is out of print and impossible to find used.

 

No can do. I'm a missionary with 44 supporting churches with various positions.

And I don't agree that KJVO is heretical considering the Greek meaning of the word as being divisive (used in an epistle to a local church). If someone comes to the local church I pastor with a Bibliology that might cause a church split, that would be heresy and I would act against it. Other than that, as Baptists we believe in the autonomy of the local church, meaning that each local church has the right to determine their own position on Bibliology.

 

SMH, sadly and saying, "Amen!"

 

I don't actually have a problem with KJVO's as long as they hold to it for themselves and don't go around beating up other good translations. I also have a problem with those who make it their life's calling to convert folks from one version to another, be it to or fro the KJV.

The best Bible for you is the one you read, understand and OBEY.

 

Well said! :wavey:

 

I said that above (or was it on the other thread about the NIV 2011?). :laugh:

We're on the same page here. Problem is, there are a lot of KJVO that DO make it their mission in life to prove that everyone else is of the devil.

 

Once again you post your opinion like it's a fact (Matthew 7:5).

 

Who?

Dallas? Really?

 

Oh, so you know someone who HAS the original manuscripts? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Why would we even need those, since we have perserved by God for us today
The Word of God to us in the KJV? As held to by som eof those holding to KJVO?

 

We certainly can't go and ask them, but I would be pretty sure that 'deletions' were accidental, not intentional.

I'm sorry to have been AWOL from this thread up to now, but I'd like to explore the idea that the Byzantine Texts 'harmonize' the different evangelists. Let's consider the Lord's Prayer in Matt 6 and Luke 11.

If this is indeed the Lord's 'pattern' prayer for us, I find it starnge that in the version in Luke according to the NIV, ESV, NASB etc., the Lord Jesus Christ either forgets, or does not think it worthwhile to tell us to pray for God's will to be done on earth, and omits to tell us to pray to be delivered from Satan. In fact, I flatly refuse to believe that our Lord is the author of the horribly truncated prayer that we find in most modern versions of Luke 11.

However, can it be argued that the verion found in the KJV and NKJV is the result of harmonization? I don't think so. Consider:-

Matt 6:13, NKJV. '.....As we forgive our debtors.'
Luke 11:4, NKJV. '..... For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.'
[I would quote the Greek, which is also different, but I don't know how to get a Greek font on here]

If there was a conspiracy to harmonize the two accounts, why was the job not done completely? Also, why was the doxology at the end of the Matthew version left off in the Luke version? The harmonization theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

The real reason why the Luke version of the Lord's Prayer is so threadbare is that an inattentive scribe missed out portions of it and the error was not picked up until a few copies had been made. Fortunately, the mistake eventually came to light, which is why 98% of the extant manuscripts have the (correct) longer version. :thumbsup:

Steve

 

There are many others, including: Thomas Edgar, John Davis (both of Capital Bible Seminary), Donald Brake (Multnomah Seminary), Peter Streitenberger (runs the B-Greek German discussion list), Thomas Mayer (scholarly head of VTR Publications in Germany). Then there are some up and coming young scholars who are Byzantine priority like Paul Himes, currently Dr. Robinson's grader for his Greek classes. There are many more scholars not known in the text-critical realm, but who advocate Byzantine-priority.

Sturz's book, The Byzantine Text-type and New Testament Textual Criticism, is a classic in the field and changed some important minds.

 

Hodges and Farstad were both profs at Dallas Theological Seminary, and were the editors of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Would you consider them to be reputable?

 

Once again, Matthew's citation is almost an exact quote of the LXX, the Septuagint. So Christ did not paraphrase, he simply quoted a translation rather than translating the original.

 

yes, but would also have to see that those like a Dr Daniel Wallace and Kurt/barbara Aland were/are also "experts" in this field also!