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!

Provide proof

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by av1611jim, Jan 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good dodge, Askjo! The only thing this proves is that you can sidestep the issue. There is no proof that any particular manuscript is better than any other.
     
  2. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears there are 2 lines of bibles:
    1. From Asia Minor – the Majority Text – the basis for the King James Bible – Koine Greek
    2. From Egypt – Western Text – Minority Text – the basis for the modern versions – Classical Greek

    The question - Which one is superior?

    We all at least agree on one thing – We do not have the originals to compare to.

    Which line of bibles best represents the originals?
    Again they are gone so what are we left with?
    1. Compare the Greek/Hebrew texts or…
    2. Compare the English translations the two lines produced.

    Since nobody seems to feel comparing the 1,000’s of the ancient language texts is practical then you are left with… Comparing the English translations the two lines produced.

    What you have is the King James and the modern versions being compared together. You can basically pick the most popular of the modern versions or anyone for they basically all read similar since they all have the same basis.

    Just lay any modern version along side with a modern King James and go verse by verse and prayerfully and objectively and without prejudice or loyalty decide which one is “superior”. Forget about the original languages for a moment – Don’t go running the Greek/Hebrew through your head as you compare. Deal with what the average saint has to contend with – the bible in his own language today. Now – everybody has a different definition of superior so where do we go from here.

    Here is my checklist for superior:

    1. Which line is more consistent and precise in dealing with the following doctrines?
    a. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
    b. Blood atonement
    c. The Virgin Birth
    d. The 2nd Advent
    e. Hell
    f. The titles of the trinity – God the Father, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, and again, Jesus Christ
    g. The Incarnation
    h. The Resurrection
    i. The Trinity
    j. The Inerrancy of Scripture
    k. Satan
    l. Sanctification
    m. Prayer
    n. Sin
    o. The Gospel

    2. Which line has the most accurate and precise wording in all other verses?

    Now – all the versions have these doctrines somewhere – but which line of bible best portrays the above doctrines. I didn’t ask which line you “liked” better, I’m asking you if all you had is the translations those 2 lines produced then...:
    1. Which line best protects and preserves the above doctrines more consistently?
    2. Which line leaves less room for doubt?
    3. Which line opens the door for doubts and questions?

    God bless :wavey:
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is not as simple as you present here. There are other geographical and textual "lines" that have been identified.

    NOBODY??? This has been done for millenia, your favorite historical character, Origen, was involved in comparing various original language documents for variants as early as ~250 AD. He would have liked your check list.
    The modern science of textual criticism has occupied scholars with that very task for more than a hundred of years.

    Your checklist will not get you any closer to the original text!
    One of the reasons variants occur is that the transcriber can purposefully or inadvertantly improve a text to clarify its meaning.
    Textual critics study and track these changes through time.
    This is the major accusation leveled against the Byzantine/TR/Majority line of texts.

    Do you want a new and improved text? See the Byzantine/TR/ Majority textline.
    I want the text as originally given by the people who write it.

    Rob
     
    #63 Deacon, Jan 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2007
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, many (including myself) do feel like comparing the original language readings and we do it all the time. The fact that you may be too lazy to do this kind of study does not impugn the rest of us.

    What's the standard?

    Why? That's what God inspired, and that's what God perserved and you want us to forget about it?

    This is faulty reasoning. You are starting with doctrine and working back to Scripture and choosing Scripture based on whether or not it teaches what you want to hear. That is faulty method. You start with Scripture. The question is "What did this author write?" The question is not, "What is the best doctrinal statement?"

    Having said that, the MVs are as strong on every single one of these doctrines as the KJV. So using your own standard, you can still arrive at using a modern version.
    The whole argument is about which is most accurate. Without the originals you are working on probability.

    Wrong question.

    The MV leaves the least room for doubt. You yourself look with doubt at MVs; I never look with doubt at the KJV.

    Your position does. You look at MVs and doubt that they are the word of God. You ask questions like you did on the previous page.

    So your whole approach is methodologically flawed. You start with the wrong questions; and you start with the presupposition of your position and then try to work with it. Having grown up with the KJV and switched to the NASB about 10 years ago, I can say with no fear of contradiction that the NASB is clearer on every single doctrine simply by virtue of using normal language and sentence structure. The Greek texts teach the same doctrine; the MVs make it more understandable.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80

    How can we do this since God chose those languages to write His Bible?
     
    #65 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2007
  6. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They are all in Koine Greek. Manuscripts are classified into four text types: Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western and Casesarean. Many manuscripts exhibit features of more than one text type.

    Again, you are equating superior with what I wish the text said. Given this standard, if you found a manuscript that even more clearly outlined doctrines than the Byzantine, you would be forced to accept its priority, no matter what other factors militated against its being considered superior. (For an example of this practice at work, see I John 5:7.)
     
  7. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then should we throw out everything but the Greek and Hebrew and no longer use any other language to read the word of God since everybody seems to be saying the original lnaguages are the standard?

    Is this what you are really saying Roger?

    God bless :wavey:
     
  8. Lagardo

    Lagardo New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2006
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I share and respect your defense of these doctrines, however, isn't this circular reasoning? A text is superior if it affirms these doctrines that we know to be true. How do we know these to be true? the text.

    This circular reasoning only distracts the textual issue.
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    It only stands to reason that when the topic of discussion is which manuscript family or families are superior, one cannot throw out the original languages. That is as ridiculous as saying you're having a steak dinner without the steak!

    :laugh: :thumbs: :rolleyes:
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    While that is the claim of several KJV-only authors, can it be proved that there are only two separate lines and can it be proved that there has been no mixture of the two lines? I have read some that argue for three or four textual lines. Some of the texts and translations placed on the KJV-only good or pure line may some differences as great as those placed on the other line. Some of the translations placed on the KJV-only good line were based on the Greek Septuagint for the Old Testament, which would be on the other claimed line. The Latin Vulgate of Jerome is placed on the other line, and yet it definitely influenced the pre-1611 English Bibles and even the KJV. Some additions from the Latin Vulgate were added to translations in the claimed good line; some were later removed while some are claimed to have been left in that line. The 1582 Rheims New Testament is placed on the other line, and yet the 1611 KJV followed many renderings from it.

    Based on the available evidence, it does not seem that it can be correctly and validly argued that there are only two lines of Bibles that have been kept completely separate. At the very least, your argument is an oversimplification and a generalization since there would be exceptions to it even in the KJV.

    The Critical Greek N. T. text is not the basis for all modern English translations as you seemed to imply.
     
    #70 Logos1560, Jan 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2007
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Nope - but you sure can't leave them out and ignore them.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Church of England translators of the KJV accepted the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the standard. Are you implying that they accepted the wrong standard?

    The valid view that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages should be the standard for the making and evaluating of all translations does not claim that translations have no authority. The authority of a good translation including the KJV derives its authority from its underlying texts. A translation is not independent and underived. A translation is not a translation of nothing.

    Just because preachers and teachers and even all readers do not understand or interpret the Scriptures infallibly regardless of whether they read and teach from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages or from a translation of them, should all reading, teaching, and preaching be stopped according to a consistent application of your post?
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    First, the "fruit" test is not a fair comparison because what is now accepted as the eclectic critical text has been distributed for less than 150 years, while printed versions of TR-based Bibles and NTs go back over 400 years.

    Second, how can the "fruit" test be objectively applied? How could the conclusion be solely attributed to the active results of a Bible version, and not the many other variables of every age (i.e. differences in communication methods, transportation). This would be like attempting to compare the "fruits" of the Vulgate against those of the KJV.

    Third, as has been pointed out before on this BB, many heretic groups (i.e. JWs, Mormons) began during the period of KJV dominance, which would tend to be a witness against the KJV (if all positive, and negative, "fruits" of a generation can be attributed to a Bible version, and not the responsibility its' saints).
     
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Logically, if they are different, they cannot be both 'right'. That only leaves two alternatives: 1) one is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'; or 2) they are both 'wrong'. As stated previously, it is impossible to determine positively the 'right' one without the autographs, or the authors themselves to identify their work.

    'Wrong' here means corrupt, or inaccurate, not original. I believe the mathematical probability is well against any major text group being completely incorrupt over thousands of words, and hundreds of copyists. Therefore, this is actually an exercise in determining the one that is less corrupt, or less certain to be the original words.

    I believe they are both 'right' in about 98% of their text. I don't believe that either one alone contains fully the other 2% of original words. The problem is not that we lack text (have only 98%), it is that we have too much (over 104%)!
     
    #74 franklinmonroe, Jan 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2007
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I doubt whether the NT writers themselves knew for the most part that they were authoring what would become our 'scriptures'. Certainly, John did as he wrote his Apocalypse. Paul specifically requested that his letters be read and some shared among other congregations as inspired teachings from the Lord, but did he recognize at the time that they were destine for continued use beyond his time by thousands of years? I don't think so; I know that apostles believed the Lord's return would come very soon.

    Likewise, I doubt that early 1st century copyists had the foresight that those documents they were handling would be considered later as 'scripture' (it had been 400 years since the last prophetic writer). How would they know which documents were sacred and which would be secular? (For a while, II Peter, Jude, and other books stood outside the canon, while many other Acts, and Gospel imposters were being reviewed). I believe they copied the letters and gospels as utilitarian matters of convenience, necessity, and generosity. I don't think those apostolic Greek writings became revered until sometime later. By then, perhaps, the majority of damage was done.

    I also don't think the majority of damage was done spitefully, or out of carelessness, but mostly out of misguided pious 'assistance', or improvement, and familiarity.
     
    #75 franklinmonroe, Jan 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2007
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Obviously, your perception of "superior" here means to support various doctrines. But in the context of a discussion of ancient manuscripts "superior" should be understood to mean more certain, or closer, to the original as can be determined through the displine of textual criticism.

    The TR may indeed support these doctrines more vigorously. However, it is this very fact that makes me pause and inspect those words and phrases that so overtly emphasize these doctrines as being potentially inserted into the text.

    Conversely, it seems rather odd that there would also be many inert and innocuous 'omissions' in the eclectic text, if the only purpose of 'editing' the text was to reduce its voracity.
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see no one answered my questions. My point is that 3 families of manuscripts disagreed each other because of different readings. AVBunyan’s excellent post concerning the important doctrines reflecting to these manuscripts is to ask you question: Which one is superior?
     
  18. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not trying to get too the originals - can't be done so the Lord must have another standard by which we should go by.

    What is your standard Rob?

    What is your absolute final authority Rob?

    God bless :wavey:
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The one that accurately reads just as the original author wrote.

    The question is, How do you decide this?
     
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Surely this is a rhetorical question.

    The final and absolute authority is Almighty God.

    Have we forgotten that the human race went for millenia without a written Word of God and He did quite all right and He had His righteous such as Seth, Noah, Shem...etc who did not have an AV from any kingdom.

    HankD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...