Is the Byzantine Text a "late" text?

How is this any different than what you do? In the world there exist translations (KJV, NIV, NAS, ESV, NTW, RSV, etc) and texts (TR, MT, CT, individual readings within those text families) that conflict with each other and you, or your pastor, or some scholar you admire must decide what God really said. You just happened to pick the KJV. There are even multiple versions of the KJV -- you have to pick which reading is what God said. Do you use your own judgment, a pastor's judgment, or some other scholar's judgment that you trust?

Andy

 

Why do you keep dragging the KJB translators into the discussion?? Why do you rely on them instead of what God said?? Thanks for re-affirming your position.

So,you are a GMO(God's message only).What about what God said in Matt.24:35,Prov.30:5,and Psalm.138:2??? Do you believe it? yes no?? Why not? Are you putting what some man said above what God said?? Why??

Oh?? Prove it.

Where in the word of God(KJB)is the word capitalized when not speaking of the Lord Jesus hrist??? Chapter and verse please...

OK.Which one of the 200+ conflicting authorities is "reliable"??? Which one is the perfect word of God???? ONE PLEASE!!!

That is a LIE!!!What about 2nd Tim 3:16?? That was no referece to any original.What Tim had in his lap was Scripture!!! Read verse 15 if you doubt it!!!

 

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

First: what Timothy had was indeed the original letter from Paul written in his own hand while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Second: Let me ask this question: In what form was the Scripture from vs 15 that Timothy knew from a child? Hebrew? Greek Septuagint? or 1611 KJV?

If it was the Hebrew, then is the Hebrew Scripture still the Word of God today?

HankD

 

Double post

[ November 12, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Because they have alot more authority to say whether they were operating under inspiration or else operating within their own choices than you, Will Kinney, or any other KJVO. Their words demonstrate that they knew their work was not inspired.

The better question is why do you rely on them instead of what God said. They made translation choices that they claimed as their own. They suggested that to get the true sense of scripture we compare various translations.

No problem.

God's Word is the message.

What language do you think those words were spoken in? Is that language a living language or is it a dead language? When that promise was made, were the words in writing or was the statement related to His power to make authoritative, certain declarations?

This a great text to support the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the originals. However, the KJV does not contain God inspired words. It is a fallible translation of a fallible original language text... which was created by a man who probably wasn't even saved nor qualified to "re-write" scripture via inspiration.

Note that it says His "word" not His "words". One's 'word' is what they mean, not the 'words' used to communicate the meaning.

Yes I believe all of these scriptures. What I reject is your errant attempts to co-opt these texts to prove KJVOnlyism. If your interpretations were correct (which they aren't), none of these citations allude to the KJV.

No. I am putting what God actually said above what you and other KJVO's twist God's Word to say.

Because you are not authoritative- the text of the Bible provides no proof whatsoever for your conclusions and the example of scripture disproves your position (ie. Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1).

KJVOnlyism, and thus direct inspiration of the words of the KJV, is false because it is not true. It is not scripturally proven. It is not historically proven. It conflicts with the examples of scripture. The KJV does contain minor errors that have been discussed here at length. And, KJVOnlyism conflicts with the facts of history.

Furthermore, KJVOnlyism is not a historically held doctrine. There is no proof that anyone before the last 50 or so years held that the words of the KJV were God inspired. If this were a necessary truth, God would have revealed certainly to those of the great 18th, 19th, and early 20th century revivals.

Where in the word of God(KJB)is the word capitalized when not speaking of the Lord Jesus hrist??? Chapter and verse please... </font>[/QUOTE] The capitalization rules adopted and followed by the KJV translators are not binding by any stretch. They also do not capitalize personal pronouns used for God.

OK.Which one of the 200+ conflicting authorities is "reliable"??? Which one is the perfect word of God???? ONE PLEASE!!! </font>[/QUOTE] Which dictionary is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which doctor is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which car is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which manuscript of the NT is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!!.... etc.....etc....etc....

Your inability to understand and reconcile details of the inspiration, promised preservation, transmission, and translation of God's Word is not a valid premise for limiting the Bible to a single version or text tradition.

That is a LIE!!!</font>[/QUOTE] You have provided absolutely no proof that it is a "LIE!!!". Again, your lack of discernment does not make what I believe or know a lie.

Yes... and it wasn't the KJV.

It might have been Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. We aren't told.

This whole passage supports what I believe and contradicts what you believe. It is full of qualifiers for scripture. Namely, what scripture teaches, its uses, and what it does for the student.

None of the MV's I use fail on any of these qualifiers. They are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." You KJVO's have yet to prove otherwise.

 

No. Nor do you in spite of all your ranting and railing. We do have the infallible, complete Word of God.

Show me how the versions I recommend conflict in the doctrine they teach. Your attempt to create a straw man is crafty but not valid.

I have one ultimate authority. He inspired a message to mankind over 1400 years that was completed about 1900 years ago. I have 100% confidence that everything He wanted to reveal originally is preserved to me... even though He did not see fit to preserve it by facsimile.

Yes. The first place is to always compare scripture with scripture to see if the conflict is real or not. Second, research possible reasons for the disagreement.

The one thing we shouldn't do is simply trust the work of Erasmus and a group of 17th-19th century Anglicans.

This charge is far more valid directed at you than at us. KJVOnlyism is completely dependent on the works of long dead scholars and the vain imaginations of recent men.

Your authority is not scripture. It does not teach what you believe.

So unless you claim to have divine inspiration that is in fact advanced revelation beyond the Bible, you are the one who is trusting men... not us.

No. We refuse to accept the arbitrary choice of the KJV as the single English manifestation of that promise.

But they are based on something biblical... which cannot be said for KJVOnlyism.

Neither did the mss used by Erasmus to create the TR.

Only if one ascribes to your predisposition to find these things and reject all reasonable explainations. You have a bias to maintain and demonstrate that you will not allow facts to get in the way.

You do the same with the historical documents behind the modern KJV. The mss of the Byzantine tradition, conflict, Erasmus' mss conflicted, the editions of the TR, conflicted, the editions of the KJV conflict,...

You are caught up in your own trap.

Your RCC scholar Erasmus did the same thing. However, he was also influenced by RCC tradition, the Vulgate, and politics.

I consider neither Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, nor the KJV translators to be God... perhaps that is where we differ?

But He did not say it was the KJV, did He? You said that.

You mean there are no errors that you are willing to accept as errors.

That is subjective conjecture at best. Statistically, there are more born again Christians worldwide since the advent of modern textual scholarship as well as a greater percentage.

Who is attacking it? Do I attack my daughter when I tell her that her room isn't perfectly clean? No.

To say the KJV isn't inspired of God and does not contain perfect words is not an attack on the KJV... it is, and is intended to be, an attack on the false KJVO doctrine.

This indictment works far better on KJVO's. God did not establish your false teaching and the damage being done to the body of Christ by the conflict it raises is certainly not pleasing to Him.

I hope He finds us faithful to Him and not a manmade translation or a false doctrine that makes an idol of it.

Without a doubt. And the behavior of onlyists gives us some insight into perhaps why God didn't allow a word for word perfect transmission of the originals... the Bible was not given to be idolized.

Yes I do. As English continues to change, those who refuse to allow updated translations will deny believers personal access to the Word of God. Soon, the Bible will be what a few leaders say it is.

Satan already used this trick with the Vulgate and appears to be using it again with the KJV.

Heard, rebutted, rejected...

Notably you used a command that Christ used of His words to refer to your own words. Do you think you are speaking with His authority? This seems to be further indication that your mind is your final authority seeing as you equate your words to Christ's by using parallel wording.

I have to say "no thanks" to the gospel according to Will Kinney.

 

Well..50 years ago you'd have to say the same thing about the Alexandrian text as well..since p75 hadn't been discovered yet.

What text type was used in the Greek/Asia Minor areas pre-Constantine? We don't know do we?

Dr. Robinson stated that we don't have any manuscript, versional, or patristic evidence from before the mid-4th century for the areas of southern Italy, Greece and modern Turkey.

Why is it a big leap to think that post-Constantine they used the same text type they used pre-Constantine? (ie. Byzantine text)?</font>[/QUOTE]With all due respect to Dr. Robinson, we *do* have very early pre-Nicene patristic sources from Asia Minor and Italy in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers like Clement of Rome (c. 96 A.D.), Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 A.D.), and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 155 A.D.). That's the good news. The bad news is that their Scriptural citations and allusions are so loose and imprecise that it's impossible to determine with any confidence what kind of text they used. What it does tell us, though, is that the earliest Christian writers in Italy and Asia Minor showed surprisingly little concern for the exact wording of the text of the New Testament.

Actually, W&H *did* have evidence... the indirect evidence of early Fathers like Origen. What they didn't have was any *direct* evidence in the form of an early Greek MS.

If that happens, it will establish beyond all doubt the early existence of the Byzantine text and revolutionize New Testament textual criticism. Some, like Robinson, will continue to argue for total Byzantine priority, and will have hard evidence to back it up. Others will be more cautious and adopt a positon like that of Sturz, who believed that the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine streams were all early independent forms of the text existing side by side.

 

The Syrian church used it. </font>[/QUOTE]The only way we can know what text the Syrian church used before 400 A.D. is by analyzing the Scriptural quotations in the writings of the Syrian Fathers who *belonged* to the Syrian church and who lived before 400 A.D. In every single case, the Scriptural quotations of the early Syriac Fathers show either a Diatessaron or an Old Syriac text. *None* of them show a Peshitta text. So if the Syrian Church used the Peshitta in its earliest centuries, how come not a single one of its earliest writers used it? Where is the *hard evidence* of the existence of the Peshitta before 400 A.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]The Peshitta from 2nd Century is very ancient version because these common people within the Syriac Church continued to be loyal to it. They came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made little differences to them if these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not.

 

The Syrian church used it. </font>[/QUOTE]The only way we can know what text the Syrian church used before 400 A.D. is by analyzing the Scriptural quotations in the writings of the Syrian Fathers who *belonged* to the Syrian church and who lived before 400 A.D. In every single case, the Scriptural quotations of the early Syriac Fathers show either a Diatessaron or an Old Syriac text. *None* of them show a Peshitta text. So if the Syrian Church used the Peshitta in its earliest centuries, how come not a single one of its earliest writers used it? Where is the *hard evidence* of the existence of the Peshitta before 400 A.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]The Peshitta from 2nd Century is very ancient version because these common people within the Syriac Church continued to be loyal to it. They came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made little differences to them if these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know these "common people" of the 2nd C. continued to be "loyal" to the Peshitta when there's not one single shred of evidence it even existed back then? What evidence do you have that the "common people" of the 2nd C. used the Peshitta rather than the Diatessaron or the Old Syriac, which we *know* existed back then?

 

That's because Scott is correct. P75 *is* an Alexandrian text. P75 agrees with B as closely as any two MSS of the Lake group agree with each other, and we *know* that the Lake group MSS are direct copy descendents.

And that last sentence is the reason why Klijn's study (which was comparing a very specific kind of relationship between Aleph, B, and the papyri) cannot be used to assert that P75 is *not* an Alexandrian MSS. Textual relationships are established by considering *all* places where two MSS agree. When you compare the *total* amount of agreements and disagreements between P75 and B, it's obvious that they are *very* closely related. So if B is Alexandrian, P75 is Alexandrian. Klijn himself clearly acknowledges this in the very same study Pickering cites (a fact Pickering conveniently fails to mention in his "Identity of the NT Text"):

"...P75 appeared to show a text which is in very close agreement with B. This means that we can say with Martini who studied the relationship between P75 and B that the archetype of P75 and B must go back to a time 'non piu tardi della fine del seculo II' [not later than the end of the 2nd C.]. This conclusion cannot be doubted." (A.F.J. Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts, Part Two, 1949-1969, p. 38).

Scott, you keep on using "good old P75" because you are absolutely right -- P75 is without any question an Alexandrian MS.

Will, you might consider dropping Pickering's flawed, misleading, inaccurate, and out-of-context misuse of Klijn's study.

 

Are you debating a phantom or is there another Scott in this thread? I haven't written anything about P75. Perhaps I missed something or you have me confused with someone else.

 

Thanks Archangel7. I read Pickerings stuff a while back and was unfortunately deceived.

That is what irks me the most regarding the entire textual issue..there is alot of deception, false statements, and poor scholarship that leaves one wondering who is telling the truth.

Who do you suggest are reliable trustworthy witnesses to the textual issue? Books? Articles?

-kman

 

Are you debating a phantom or is there another Scott in this thread? I haven't written anything about P75. Perhaps I missed something or you have me confused with someone else. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, Scott, if we have the wrong person. Kman, perhaps? He's mentioned P75.

 

The Bible. It tells us who is qualified to write scripture and speak from God.

The KJV translators do not qualify... nor has any one else since the Apostle John died.

Yes. But that isn't the question. The question is "What proof is there that a translation was inspired and what are the qualifications of the translators?"

Your only problem here is that you have dishonestly portrayed what you opponents believe. Many of us do believe we have God's inspired Word. We reject the notion that we have inspired words.

You have aptly demonstrated that you are not an expert on what others believe. I disagree with your KJVOnlyism but believe we have exactly what God meant to tell us.

Because scripture testifies of the fact that God inspired scripture and set forth qualifiers as to who that inspiration would come through.

No. I reject the notion that you, operating from you preconceived biases, are a source for infallible interpretation of scripture.

Even the scripture you allude to is a guarantee of the truth of Christ's prophecies, not that the exact wording of the whole Bible was going to be written down and preserved without blemish throughout history.... but, if you want to persist in this notion, I once again challenge you to tell us which manuscript represents this perfect preservation and to list its succession from the originals.

I will get to the rest later.

 

For a translation to be inspired the translation would have to be "God-breathed" and the product of "holy men of God who spake".

The Scripture says "who spake" not "who translated".

Inspiration is focused upon the person receiving a direct revelation from God.

I can't find "who translated" anywhere in the Scripture as relating to a "second-hand" inspiration.

If a person really believes that God "inspired" the KJV of the Bible then they ought to join the Church of England, have their children sprinkled and not remain a Baptist that He should give such power to these Anglican clerics who held to paedo-baptism (for instance) and persecuted our fore-fathers (another for instance).


HankD

 

I doubt such a "translation" was necessary since the writer, Moses, spent time in direct contact with God. Whether God inspired Moses to translate the words or God gave Moses the words of Joseph in Hebrew without Moses ever knowing the Egyptian words is not even relevant, Moses was an inspired holy man of old and prophet. The KJV translators were not.

A pearl of wisdom in an ocean of non-sense.

I agree with everything in your statement. Of course, our disagreement would begin when you limited the "God given text" to whichever unknown edition of the TR used by the KJV translators then extend to your limitation of the "inspired word of God" to the KJV.

I note that you used "word" and not "words". That simple change allowed me to agree with you.

Questions: If the TR has readings drawn directly from the Latin Vulgate without any Greek support, does that mean that either all the Greek or else the TR contains "foreign matter"?

Have you found the Greek ms that matches the TR word for word? Which one is it? If you haven't then how do you arrive at the conclusion that the TR and only the TR is the "same water" as the originals?

If the KJV ever strays from the TR, does that mean that one or the other is not of the "same water"?

Also penned by an inspired writer... not Anglican or RCC scholars.

Faithful translations have derived inspiration as they communicate the same message as the originals. However, the words are the choices of translators.

You can write a statement like this and then object to the differences in the various Bible versions?

You have just made a terrific case for why the existence and use of multiple English translations of God's inspired Word is perfectly legitimate. Thanks.

It should also be noted that this passage does not say that Timothy had a facsimile of the originals, an inspired copy, nor an inspired translation. It doesn't say that "all scripture" is translated or transmitted by inspiration. It says scripture is "given" by inspiration. Who did God give it through? Prophets and holy men of old.

Also, "in fact", this is a straw man argument. To argue that the originals were directly inspired does not negate the argument that copies and translations have derived inspiration due to their content.

And when someone tells you that a translation is "inspired" you should ask them "by a direct act of God or as derived by faithfulness to the message of the originals?".

If someone tells you that a translation has inspired words, you should ask them to give you proof which would include the biblical qualifications of the translators. Their denial of being inspired would also be a strong indicators that they WERE NOT INSPIRED.

Or the third option, they refuse to accept your interpretation as the infallible rule.