Modern Scholarship is a Joke! - a few examples

Craig, I congratulate you. You are the first one I have read so far who has actually tried to deal with the text and the changes made in the more recent UBS, Nestle texts.

Here is the relevent part of the post, and then I will comment.

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 her children."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kinney,
I read your post and it looks to me as though the data that you posted does not very well represent the facts. You write that the “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.” Although it is true that the Vaticanus does read neepios, so do, for the most part, the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek text. And the 3rd edition of USB Greek text also reads neepios, but they label it {C}, meaning “that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading.” The apparatus includes a list of many important manuscripts for both readings, giving us an abundance of proof that neither reading is “ridiculous.” Modern scholarship has not failed us here! Rather it has given the Christian community very important and relevant data so that each individual Christian can look at the data and make up his/her own mind."

Craig, several things are wrong here.

First, what do you mean by "the oldest and best manuscripts" line? This is another joke.

Secondly, your scholars keep changing their minds. The previous Nestle-Aland texts read "gentle" and not even the nasb, niv, rsv, esv followed the new reading of "babes".

Thirdly, the "explanation" of Leon Morris that
the conclusion that “the balance of probability seems to favor “babes,” and we adopt this reading. The meaning of it will then be that the apostles became as simple as possible, as simple as babes as they preached. It is a strong expression for the extreme lengths to which they went to meet the needs of the hearers.”


This is just plain silly. Morris adopts a reading that even most of your modern versions reject, and Morris is not reading the whole text.

The literal reading if we adopt the Vaticanus reading of babes or infants would then be "We were babes among you AS a nurse cherishes here children." Get it? This has got to be one of the stupidest things some scholar could try to defend as being from the mouth of God.

Now, the word "gentle" fits the whole context, but "babes" does not.

Your statement here, Craig, is very revealing. You said: "” Modern scholarship has not failed us here! Rather it has given the Christian community very important and relevant data so that each individual Christian can look at the data and make up his/her own mind."

Problem is, Craig, all you guys come up with different conclusions and you each become your own final authority. This is what I have been saying all along. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes." God did not use this expression as a compliment or a recommendation to follow.

You guys who become your own self appointed scholars have adopted a humanistic approach to the Scriptures. You end up with no infallible, inspired Bible, and fail to see the Providence of God in doing what He said He would do - preserve His words.

You have men on this board like Larry and a bunch of others who think all the Hebrew texts are corrupt in places, and that parts of God's words have been lost (exp. 1 Samuel 13:1).

You have men like Bob who says something so inane, like, "All the versions are inspired by the same Holy Spirit". No Craig, I stand by what I said. Modern scholarship is a joke and a very bad one at that. It turns your minds into mush.

Will Kinney

 

As can be seen from the UBS Greek texts, they keep changing things, not based on any new textual evidence found in some cave somewhere, but merely on caprice and a whim. Flip a coin. Throw a dart at a board. Come up with a new reading. Sell it fast, and go on to something new.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are absolutely false statements and libelous slander, the very slippery rocks upon which the KJVO Cult is founded. False statements such as these can never further the cause of Christ, they only further ignorance and weaken the Church.


Craig, if you think my statement about the UBS Greek texts continually changing is untrue, perhaps you missed my articles about They Dare Call This Science!

Here is the first part. There is another there that follows.


http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

 

Hi Kevin, thank you for your comments and questions. I will try to answer you. You said:

" I (and others) respect your view of God preserving His Word, But maybe I'm simple and lack comprehension and reading skills , but I still think your argument breaks down, because since 1611 we "have God's perfectly preserved words without error" however God didn't preserve them till then? I read somewhere that you said something about God refining His Word in the KJV1611 (as if it broke down till then? [my words]). I'm sorry, I fail to see the logic that we didn't quite have His Word alltogether till 1611, and that was the "magic year"(my words) almost seems dispensational. I believe that in 2004 we can find God's Word the very same place that it was found between 1604-1611. "

Kevin, I referred to the "refining" as the printing errors being corrected in the KJB; I was not referring to the words of God themselves. I wrote an article about the Old Latin that was used up through the 1500's, mainly by the Waldensians. That is a good educated guess as to where God's pure words were preserved till 1611. You can see this here, and then respond accordingly.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

Kevin, I find your comment to be of great interest. You said: "I believe that in 2004 we can find God's Word the very same place that it was found between 1604-1611."

And where exactly would that be? Out there somewhere in all the conflicting manuscripts?
Or in the NASB, NKJV, ESV, NIV all of which differ from each other, often as much as thousands of words found in the various texts, as well as totally changing the meaning in hundreds of others? All these "bibles" destroy sound doctrine in several passages and teach contradictions.


You then continue:
"I am curious, and I do NOT mean this as ridicule, but if the Lord Jesus does not return for several hundred more years (hypothetical), and the English of the KJV becomes readable only to those who have to study it as a special language, do you still believe that believers in that day will have to read the KJV1611(1769)? or do you believe it would be alright to have the KJV revised (or a new translation, even based on exactly what the 1611 was based upon)? Don't you think that there will come a day (I believe that it has come), that it's time for the KJV to become a MV? i.e. a NewKJV (not necessarily the NKJV of 1982)."

Kevin, I think that if the Lord tarries for a couple hundred years more, there may come a time when the KJB could reasonably be updated as far as some archaic words. However, who is going to do this? I have no idea. Efforts like the NKJV are a sham. The NKJV is NOT just like the old KJB but with updated language.

The NKJV is an abomination in my opinion. The NKJV keeps on changing its meaning and wording from one edition to the next, and has changed the clear meaning of the Old KJB in literally hundreds of verses. The NKJV is a farce and a pretender.

If God clearly moves in history to bring about a revision, not of the texts, but of some few words in English, I personally would have no problem with this. But right now, words that some would change or modernize, others would not.

Also to consider, would you change the distinction between the 2nd person singular and 2 person plural (thou vs ye), which is far more accurate and reflects the Hebrew and Greek texts?

I would not. I see nothing wrong with having a Holy Bible that reads differently than a newspaper or a novel. In fact, I believe it is a positive rather than a negative.

Thanks again,

Will

 

Originally posted by Askjo:

quote:

What errors does the KJV have?
-

Sir Roby responds:
We've posted them numerous times, but here are three of 'em to refresh your memory:
"Easter" in Acts 12:4
"The image of" in Romans 11:4
"God forbid" numerous times throughout the New testament


Roby, most of the time I do not answer you because you and I have gone round and round for years now, and I consider you to be a bufoon as far as the Bible version issue is concerned.

You yourself have said that no Bible in the inspired word of God. You have no final authority at all and don't defend any version in particular.

You are not looking for answers; You only want to create doubt and uncertainty. You have received good answers to your alleged errors in the KJB, but you refuse to receive the truth. You just go around from board to board posting the same inanities as though your objections have never been seriously answered.

You know full well there are very good answers to these three supposed "errors" in the KJB, and many other Bible translators have done exactly the same thing as the KJB did in these examples.

It's a case of "my scholars can beat your scholars", and you have posted some of your views on Scripture that not even the most depraved of modern versionists would agree with.

Need I refresh YOUR memory?

Here are just a few of your more famous lines of reasoning.

"In the meantime,WHO'S TO SAY that this reading is correct,and that reading is wrong? Looks like,to me,that for every reading someone says is incorrect,someone else with the same knowledge or ability to read greek,Hebrew,or Aramaic says that reading in question IS correct."

" The languages in which the Scriptures were originally written changed over the centuries,same as our modern languages are ever-changing. Thus,the extant MSS used for Scriptural translations are in all probability different from the Autographa."

"We believe there is not one absolutely exclusive correct text and that none other is at all correct,as the Onlyist does,but without proof."

"We know texts used by the translators of some versions didn't include
words found in other texts used by other translators. Until the
questions of textual authenticity or non-validity are answered, we
have no authority to declare one correct to the exclusion of any other."


So, Roby, after reading what you really think, how dare you sit in judgment on the KJB texts and readings, when you yourself say you have no way of knowing which is right and which is wrong? And you think we KJB believers are the ones with the double standard!

When you decide to respond (and I am sure you will), you might let us all know why the phrase "God forbid" is wrong in your humble opinion.

Will

 

All these "bibles" destroy sound doctrine in several passages and teach contradictions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name one doctrine that is destroyed in, say, the NIV. Just one. Anyone?

OoooKay, try this one on for size.

There is another phrase. that is “hard to be understood” that has been changed in the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB. It is found in Acts 13:33 where it refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The KJB reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale, Geneva, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of great interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render this phrase “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN”. The Spanish says: “resusitándo a Jesus”, the Latin resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese- ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. Thus it is easy to see that they all consider this verse to read as does the KJB. I believe it is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The modern NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.

Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. Yet again, I believe this is a false statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as raised up again. For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee” mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origen and was inferior to God the Father.

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

I believe the NIV teaches heresy with its rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I have become your Father." This teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, of all the versions I have consulted, ONLY the NIV and the Jehovah witness New World Translation have translated this phrase as: "today I have become your Father."

The verb used here is gennao, to beget or to be born. There is no Greek word here for the NIV's " have become" or " Father" in any Greek text on this earth.

In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection. Christ bore the sins of His people, and truly died. He was dead physically and spiritually. Spiritually in that He was forsaken by the Father. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46.

Just as we need to be born again because we are born dead in our sins, so Christ took our place on the cross, paid the full penalty for our sins, and died. So too was He quickened, made alive, and begotten from the dead on that first Easter morning.

Christ refers to Himself in Rev. 1:5 as, "the firstbegotten from the dead", and in Colossians 1:18 He is referred to as the, "firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence."

We are told in I Peter 1:3, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy HATH BEGOTTEN US AGAIN unto a lively hope BY THE RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ from the dead. . . "

I believe the NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation, and that the NIV, along with the NWT, is heretical by teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

Will Kinney