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!

Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Jan 24, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 8
  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Modern Scholarship is a Joke

    1 Thessalonians 2:7 "But we were GENTLE among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."

    The word "gentle" (EEpios) is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, as well as Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus correction, and the previous Nestle-Aland Greek texts read this way and so did Westcott and Hort, as do the NKJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, and ESV. However Vaticanus actually reads BABES (or infants - neepios), and the newer Nestle-Aland 27th, and UBS 4th have now put this ridiculous reading into their Greek texts. The resultant reading would then be: "we were BABES among you, as a nurse cherishes here children."

    Even though modern Greek scholars have now once again changed their minds and re-written their Greek texts once again, and now read "babes" instead of "gentle", most modern versions continue to reject this false reading found in Vaticanus.

    The new ISV, ESV and the Holman Christian Standard Version all read "we were gentle among you", yet they all give a footnote saying: "other manuscripts read "INFANTS". The only one I know of that had adopted this reading and actually followed the latest UBS, Nestle-Aland text is the CEV.

    The Message -Originally published by NavPress in English as THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language copyright 2002

    "We weren't aloof with you. We took you just as you were. We were never patronizing, never condescending, but we cared for you the way a mother cares for her children."

    I thought this modern paraphrase was supposed to be easy to read. "Aloof, patronizing, condescending"?

    Contemporary English Version - 'We chose TO BE LIKE CHILDREN or a mother nursing her children." This is the only one I know of that actually tries to follow what modern scholars have put into their latest, updated Greek texts. You can expect more to follow.


    2 Corinthians 1:12 "For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in SIMPLICITY (haplotnti) and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom..."

    The word "simplicity" is found in the Majority text and Sinaiticus correction. It is also the reading of the newer Nestle-Aland Greek text and of the NKJV, NRSV, and the 2001 ESV. The ISV has tried to combine the earlier and the newer reading by saying "pure motives", but no Greek text actually says this.

    The older Nestle-Aland Greek texts read "holiness" (hagiotnti) following Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, and so read the RV, ASV, NIV, NASB, and RSV. The Holman Christian Standard also continues to follow this older reading in spite of the fact that the newer Greek texts (UBS 4TH edition, and Nestle 27th) have gone back to the KJB reading.


    To give an example of just how irrelevant and useless the critical notes of the various readings are in the UBS and Nestle-Aland texts, let's take a look at 2 Thessalonians 1:8. In the King James Bible we read: "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus CHRIST."

    The word CHRIST is found in the Majority of all texts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, F, G, the Old Latin copies of d,e,f, and g, which predate anything we have in Greek by 150 years, the Syriac Peshitta, Gothic, and Armenian ancient versions. The full title of "our Lord Jesus Christ" is found in the KJB, NKJV, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Luther's German bible, and all older English Bibles including Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, and the Geneva Bible.

    Vaticanus omits the word Christ, and so do the Coptic Boharic and Armenian versions, and it is omitted in the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV, and most versions that follow the Westcott-Hort texts.

    However when we look at the critical notes found at the bottom of the page of both the UBS 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, there is not one single mention of the evidence for the inclusion or the omission of the name Christ. Instead what we find are three totally useless variant readings which in no way affect the sense of the passage. One note deals with a handful of manuscripts adding and extra kai (and); another note deals with "in flaming fire" as to whether it is spelled en puri flogos, which is the reading of the Majority and Sinaiticus, or if the words are reversed and it is en flogi puros, which is the reading of Vaticanus and would not affect the translation at all; and the third critical note deals with the verb "taking" vengeance, and whether it is a present tense (which is followed by all versions and most texts) or if it is an aorist or past tense, as a handful of texts have it, or if it is an infinitive as quoted by one church father. BUT not a word about the omission of the word CHRIST.! Folks, this is modern textual scholarship in action.


    2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!

    "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."

    "From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, and the upcoming 2003 Holman Christian Standard.

    However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the 2003 ISV now read!

    Will Kinney
     
    #1 Will J. Kinney, Jan 24, 2004
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Will, please be reasonable, what's wrong with modernisation or "contemporary" language, which would you prefer?

    KJV 2 Corinthians 6
    11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
    12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
    13 Now for a recompence in the same,(I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

    To:

    NIV 2 Corinthians 6
    11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.
    12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
    13 As a fair exchange-- I speak as to my children-- open wide your hearts also.

    How about:

    KJV Philemon 1:7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.

    To:

    NIV Philemon 1:7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.

    Which translation speaks to the "common" man in language that will not confuse or bewilder him?

    HankD
     
    #2 HankD, Jan 24, 2004
  3. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here again we see yet another double standard in the KJVO camp. Pick and choose carefully alleged words and verses to prove your point, and ignore, surpress words and verses that prove, even allege that the KJV may have an inferior rendering, and should be updated. The inconsistencies are all too apparent. The above KJVO poster wants his cake and eats it too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :rolleyes:
     
    #3 Pastor KevinR, Jan 24, 2004
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Modern scholarship is a joke."

    Will, that's not a very good statement to make!!

    Modern "scholarship" is sometimes indecisive, sometimes self absorbed, sometimes wrong, and always at best a good guess. But don't say it's all a joke!

    Where would WE be without modern scholarship today? We'd still be believers and would probably have the KVJ. We would be living in cold stone houses without electricity. Perinatal mortality would be about 10% and about 1/4 of all babies born would die before 6 years old. Need I go on?

    Academic achievements in medicine and industry have made life much better - so we do not inveigh against them! Why is it bad to try to use "scholarship" to try to improve our understanding of God' word??

    I agree we should not simply give carte blanche to anyone seeking to be "progressive" or "modern" in doing something. But to say that scholarship is a joke. Ugh!!!

    Besides, this is bad example for other weaker believers. Just because something is "modern" it is not necessarily good! But the obverse is likewise true! Just because something is "modern" it is not necessarily evil!! [​IMG]
     
    #4 Charles Meadows, Jan 24, 2004
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    but why izzit that KJBOs reject the KJB1611 translators' belief in the Septuagint (LXX)?

    weren't they smarter than the modern KJBO scholar's union view that the LXX is all a myth?

    http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158%5F09.asp
     
    #5 Forever settled in heaven, Jan 24, 2004
  6. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Will J. Kinney said:

    Modern Scholarship is a Joke

    So there's no real point in listening to Dr. Peter Ruckman, Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Dr. Jack Hyles, Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. D. A. Waite, Dr. G. A. Riplinger, and Dr. Edward F. Hills? [​IMG]
     
    #6 Ransom, Jan 24, 2004
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    By the way,

    G A Riplinger does not have a doctorate. ;)
     
    #7 Charles Meadows, Jan 24, 2004
  8. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And what degrees she has are in INTERIOR DESIGN.
     
    #8 robycop3, Jan 24, 2004
  9. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doesn't she have an honorary doctorate from Hyles Anderson College? aka, not earned in the field she's alleged to be an expert in! :rolleyes: [​IMG] Sadly, too many IFB colleges have thrown around these honorary doctorates, thereby cheapening them! Let's pump up the ego, y'all!
     
    #9 Orvie, Jan 24, 2004
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    I'm glad that the translators of the KJV didn't have that attitude.
     
    #10 Craigbythesea, Jan 24, 2004
  11. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    And how I noticed how you wrote your concise observation in KJV 1611 style instead of modern scholastic English of 2004.
     
    #11 gb93433, Jan 24, 2004
  12. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I held your posititon,I wouldn't see the point either..
     
    #12 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
  13. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because it IS mythological;a figment of someones imagination that is....
     
    #13 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
  14. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh contrair!! They DID reject modern "scholarship",they rejected the Douay-Rheims and similar dark-age Jesuit mss. and "bibles"...
     
    #14 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
  15. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh contrair!! They DID reject modern "scholarship",they rejected the Douay-Rheims and similar dark-age Jesuit mss. and "bibles"... </font>[/QUOTE]No they didn't. They called them "the word of God". They even called the LXX "the word of God, which is *far* more different from the KJV than "modern versions" are. Looks like KJV-only supporters reject "modern scholarship" AND the scholarship of the KJV translators. So now that you've shot yourselves in both feet, how do you stand up?
     
    #15 BrianT, Jan 24, 2004
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because it IS mythological;a figment of someones imagination that is.... </font>[/QUOTE]wrong again, modern scholar unionist. ;)

    it is written:
    http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
    nice try, but why shd anyone believe the modern KJBO scholar union more than the KJB1611 translators? r u guys somehow smarter than them Jacobean Anglican scholars?

    WHAT a Joke! :D
     
    #16 Forever settled in heaven, Jan 24, 2004
  17. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    On every word in the perfect word of God;the KJB...
     
    #17 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
  18. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes Will it is! Many a young man have went off to "cemetary" to have their faith in God's pure word(KJB) destroyed..Sad..
     
    #18 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
  19. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    On every word in the perfect word of God;the KJB... </font>[/QUOTE]So you reject the scholarship of the KJV translators, yet stand will on the work they produced. At the same time you also reject the scholarship of the "modern version" translators, but cannot accept their work because you reject their scholarship. Interesting. Another double standard for my list. [​IMG]

    If every word of the KJV is indeed that authoritative, perhaps you can explain by what authority you make that claim, by posting in the "By what authority" thread. [​IMG] Or not, more likely. ;)
     
    #19 BrianT, Jan 24, 2004
  20. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.But many on this board think they are....You know,"a better reading would be" or "that is a poor translation of..." or "Those poor Anglican scholars were....." "all translations of God's word are......" "Those goofy KJBO's are...."


    Who are you trying to kid???
     
    #20 Anti-Alexandrian, Jan 24, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 8
Loading...