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!

Christianity and how the bible was put together

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the sake of differentiating, I shall take the liberty to 'bold' and color two things in your post, here. The first is opinion, which I will make "blue." This does not mean that the opinion is incorrect or inaccurate, but it is still only opinion, as opposde to objective statement.

    The second is inaccurate statements, regardless of how sincere you and those you cite, may be about such. I shall bold these in "red." Each and every one of these has been refuted, usually more than once, by one or more posters, yet they still pop up in your posts, just like some freeloading relative who only drops by at mealtime, hoping for a "free lunch."

    Finally, I will make one note in "brown" regarding something that I have previously noted here, which quote I shall repeat at the end of my reply, here.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1311074&postcount=356

    The so-called Critical NT text, in fact differs with the MT in somee 5=6000 plqaces, that actually affect translation; Granted, that is far fewer differences than onwee will find, with the MT vs. TR. However -

    To quote the late Dane John W, Burgon, "
    'Very nearly — not quite:'"
    IMO, the late Dean had it exactly right!


    There are still some 1800 differences between the MT and the TR, according to Hodges and Farstad, and Robinson and Pierpont, with some 1000 of them affecting translation (although not doctrine, particularly).

    This still happens to be a significant number. So -

    How come this "inconvenient truth
    " is never acknowledged??
    [This last statement you have made above, is simply, patently false. :(

    There is nothing like any 5% of (NT) Scripture where there is any real question, regarding doctrine, based on the NT CT vs. the NT TR. At worst, one can find maybe a coupla' or three dozen examples of where there might be any question, yet you seem to keep blithely repeating this charge! Why????

    This objection I have raised, here, has nothing to do with whether or not I think that Codex Aleph (Sinaicatus) or Codex B (Vaticanus) is a very good copy of Scripture, for frankly, I generally do not think they are to be preferred, over the entire range of Scripture found in them, from what I have been able to find and access, both on-line, and in my own two "hard copies" of the Greek New Testament. [/quote]Finally, my alter ego, Language Cop, previously had me post this,
    and now says I should repeat the spelling of "parchment," since that word appears to be giving you multiple, continuing problems. It was and is not "parchiament", as shown in my above linked post. Nor is the word "parchament" as You have spelled it here. And the manuscript you refer to is correctly spelled "Vaticanus."

    Ed
     
    #241 EdSutton, Nov 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2008
  2. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Not to mention Masoretic...
     
  3. antiaging

    antiaging New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0


    The old King James version, Old Testament, is translated directly from the Hebrew Massoretic text. It is not translated from the textus receptus.
    It don't matter how many differences between the TR and the MT their are; the KJV translators went directly from the MT in Hebrew to English.
    [Because the Septuagint probably came at a later date than the writings of the apostles, the Septuagint quoted from the apostles in certain places. The apostles did not quote from the Septuagint, because they used the massoretic text, and not the Septuagint. And they commented on the quotations adding what they thought appropriate, just like preachers do in sermons today.]

    The King James translators came along and saw what the Hebrew Masoretic text said and simply translated it right over into the English. They didn't quibble with it; they didn't try to harmonize it. ... Never be ashamed of the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text that underlies the King James Bible! It was accumulated by the Jews in fulfillment of Ro. 3:1- 2. We agree with Dean John William Burgon who wrote of "the incredible folly of tinkering with the Hebrew text" (from a letter April 8, 1885, appearing in the Guardian, as quoted in John William Burgon, Late Dean of Chichester--A Biography, 1892, by Edward Mayrick Goulburn).

    "Not only was the Scripture accumulated by the Jews, but it was authorized by Jesus. Jesus Christ authorized the traditional Masoretic Hebrew O.T. text (Mt. 4:4; 5:17-18; Lk. 24:27,44). The Lord Jesus Christ never refuted any text, any word, or any letter in the Hebrew O.T. He didn't say, `Now Moses was misquoted here, it should have been this...' He offered no textual criticism whatever. Had there been any changes, I'm sure He would have corrected it, but He didn't. It stands written! His stamp of approval is on the Masoretic Hebrew text.

    http://www.wayoflife.org/ency/textency/ency003e.htm

    The KJV New Testament is translated from the textus receptus rendering of Stephanus and someone else. It is not translated from the work of Erasmus who interpolated with the Latin Vulgate in places.
    People after Erasmus made better and more accurate renderings of it. They had more copies to work with than Erasmus. To get all of the epistles and gospels you needed more than one copy. The copies were partial that were found. The KJV translators used their copies of the textus receptus.

    The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians. This is also the text that agrees with more than 95% of the Bible Manuscripts in Koine (common) Greek. It is known by other names, such as the Traditional Text, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, or Syrian Text.

    In his essay Texual Criticism, Dr. Thomas Cassidy writes: "The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."

    A few facts showing the respected historical position of the Textus Receptus are in order. Its prominence and respect did not begin in 1611 with the KJV translators. They merely recognized (as others before them had), that the Textus Receptus was God's preserved word in the original New Testament language.



    Consider the following:

    Prior to the 20th century, all English Bibles since Tyndale's first New Testament (1526) were based on the Textus Receptus. This includes: Miles Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1500-1555), The Great Bible (1539), The Geneva Version (1560), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and the King James Version (1611). [STORY OF OUR ENGLISH BIBLE, by W. Scott]

    Ancient Versions followed the reading of the Textus Receptus. These versions include: The Peshitta Version (AD 150), The Italic Bible (AD 157), The Waldensian (AD 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible (Southern France) (AD177), The Gothic Bible (AD 330-350), The Old Syriac Bible (AD 400), The Armenian Bible (AD 400 There are 1244 copies of this version still in existence.), The Palestinian Syriac (AD 450), The French Bible of Oliveton (AD 1535), The Czech Bible (AD 1602), The Italian Bible of Diodati (AD 1606), The Greek Orthodox Bible (Used from Apostolic times to the present day by the Greek Orthodox Church). [Bible Versions, D.B. Loughran

    http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/
     
    #243 antiaging, Nov 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2008
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    BTW I have a copy of the King James Version. I like it because I like the language. I like Shakespear as well. But that has nothing to do with superiority of the text it was translated from.

    Here are some points about the TR

    So how pure is your TR? It obviously wasn't Immaculately concieved in the autographs and immaculatly passed down until the 1611 KJV. Sell your wares elsewhere. You know the phase "caveat emptor".
     
  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, Brother David Cloud - Or is the adopted alter ego maybe Bro. Barry Burton, Dr. D. M. Waite, Dr. Edward F. Hills, John Doe, or Dr. 'Joe' Whatshisface today? :rolleyes:

    For one who signs himself or herself as antiaging, this is certainly getting a bit old, with the number of corrections to what has been posted, that I need to keep making, I would say! Incidentally, should I have been be surprised that you excised from your quotes, the one sentence where the late Dean John W. Burgon was quoted, albeit with two typos? Or is the quote I posted just one more "inconvenient truth"? These happen to be rhetorical questions, so I am not really expecting a response, to them.

    I apologize if this sounds a bit 'flip', but it often does become hard to keep up with the players without a scorecard. Not to mention, that you (and/or whomever you have acquired this so-called 'information' from) have already made at least three major errors, thus far in your post. And we are just now getting started, no less!

    1.) The first error is that I did not reference the OT, at all, here. And were it not for the fact that, IMO, you are more concerned with "pushing" the particular version you prefer, as opposed to actually finding out what is being said, you would have noticed this, had you taken the time to actually read my posts, as well as some of the other ones posted. (FTR, I care not what particular version or edition anyone prefers, but would like to see this reported accurately as stated, rather than seeing any 'thinly veiled attack' against any version or edition preferred by some other.)

    2.) The abbreviation "MT" is not used to reference the OT, at all, generally speaking, and certainly not by me. It rather stands for the Majority Text, of the NT, is generally equivalent (but not to a 100% certainty, with absolutely zero variants) to the so-called Byzantine text tradition, of the NT, and is how I used, and always do use, that term. (If you choose to 'argue' or raise the point(s), at least learn the nomenclature, that is being used. It will help with the perception that you might actually know something about what you are discussing, which, IMO, is unfortunately lacking in most of these discussions, about the subject!)

    3.) So therefore, it is false that "It don't (sic) matter how many differences between the TR and the MT their (sic) are;" for that is exactly the false perception that I was correcting, which happens to be one that you have previously put forth - namely that the TR is exactly that of the MT. (Do I need to explain what "TR" stands for, as well? How about "LXX" and/or "DSS"??) :(

    4.) The implication that the LXX dates from roughly the 2nd Century, A.D. forward, is ridiculous, to say the least, given what we know. Rather, I would suggest this is nothing more than 'spin' designed to promote an "Only-ism" view. The very fact that Apollos quotes one Scripture (Deut. 32:43) found in both the LXX and DSS [although not found in the Masoretic text(s)] as Scripture, in Heb. 1:6b shows this to be a fallacy, for one could not possibly cite a Scripture that did not already exist.

    5,) Nor could Jesus have read from a text that did not exist, as I have also shown to be the case in Lk. 4:16-22, and previously posted, in response to you, here. I'll repeat this once again. (Please try and pay attention, this time.) The text that Jesus read from does not correspond to any known text, be it Masoretic, DSS or LXX, yet Jesus both read from the book (or scroll) and declared it Scripture. Below is where that post (#125 in the thread) is found, once again, in which you ignored what was said, but instead made a 'swipe' at any and all other Bible versions (post # 179, same thread) as well as impugned my own abilities, character, motivations and spirituality. FTR, I am not particularly bothered by that (I've endured far worse, I assure you.), but I merely cite it to show that you did not address the facts I cited, even then, nor are you doing so now.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1306382&postcount=125

    6.) And there is absolutely zero evidence that would lead anyone to honestly think that the LXX quotes from the Apostles, instead of the Apostles quoting from the LXX. In fact, the KJV translators address this very fact.
    May I suggest you actually read what they said, rather than just swallow completely what someone else puts forth. It might save some choking, later. The text in the 1611 spelling can be found here, with what I have quoted a little over halfway down the page.

    http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

    7.) I'll not even bother to comment on how it appears you rate the Holy Spirit and inspiration, here, save to say that when the words are stated or implied to be Scripture, your assertion that they are 'preaching' and "commenting on" as opposed to "quoting" is less than an orthodox view of inspiration, at best.

    FTR, Dr. Thomas Cassidy is a member of the Baptist Board. I really would like to hang around and play some more, but will have to let it go, at least for now. I have to go feed and water the cattle, then get to the canning of some three bushels of tomatoes.

    Ed
     
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ed you are a wonderful source of information. Thanks.
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ditto; you are indeed a very learned brother.
     
  8. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even though I probably don't deserve them, thanks for the accolades by Thinkingstuff and Matt Black.

    Ed
     
Loading...