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!

Questions we’re not suppose to ask

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, W&H have already been tried, convicted, and hanged as far as stilllearning and any other KJVO is concerned. I had hoped, with the posts made yesterday, that an honest look would be given... but I see that was just too much to ask for.

    The internet does not ask for credentials from anyone. It allows any yahoo or moron to put whatever they want up online. Do a quick search for W&H and you will pull up literally thousands of pages vilifying them as if they were the devil's right and left hand men, if not the prince of darkness himself. No, none of these so-called experts have ever bothered to actually read what W&H said and wrote; instead these bottomdwellers feed off of one another's malarky, each one compounding the errors and outright lies of the other. Basically typically KJVO "scholarship" at its best.

    I am more than fed up with this tripe from stilllearning and all the other KJVO trolls. They are allowed to waltz in here and insult anyone who does not bow before the KJV or deify the TR. I am sick of it. Not a single one is willing to consider that their position may be wrong, Oh no, as God only speaks 1611 Jacobean English and had shut the doors of heaven just after the KJV went to press. I mean, after all, if it was good enough for Paul then, by golly, it ought to be good enough for us. Bullfeathers!

    Maybe every non-KJVO ought to just check our brains and spine at the door, put on our "Welcome" t-shirt, and lay down to be KJVO's doormats. I mean, since we aren't allowed to call the KJV or the TR into question, or to suppose that the KJV is not absolute perfection and that anything put out after 1611 (or 1769, or whenever they finally perfected the perfect) is nothing but corrupt and straight from the pits of hell meant to distract people from God's only and only word in the English language...

    Keep your patronizing posts, stilllearning. You stopped learning a long time ago and have no intentions of ever starting back up again.
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    True- Jack Chick has less credibility than Wikipedia AFAIC.
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The person with one watch may only think that he knows what time it is if his one watch has the wrong time, is not working properly, or has stopped working.

    A person with two watches that may be a couple minutes different from each other would be better off than a person with one watch that has stopped or that is wrong by a greater amount of time.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with whoever said that. I would modify it to: "Chick is complete unreliable speaking of Bible history and Bibleology". Chick is pretty cool on his Doctrine of Salvation.
     
  5. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what you are saying, Stilllearning, is that God isn't capable of preserving His word in an English translation that uses modern language, because of the influences of a pair of supposed heretics who have been dead for like 200 years?

    Really?

    And you dare repeat the slanderous opinions of others without having read W&H works for yourself?

    :( I'm glad I don't have to explain that one to God. :(
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are definitely stumped by the question. If you want truth, then read on.

    Who had the original autographs all together in one volume? Nobody. Ever. The Philippians probably sent a copy of their letter from Paul to Rome; the Romans may have sent a copy of their letter back. But no group likely loaned out the original. Titus and few dozen Christians may have been the only ones to see the original epistle bearing his name today. And Matthew never saw the autograph of Isaiah.

    Additionally, did Abraham ever have a complete 'Bible' copy? No. Did Abraham even have a complete 'Old Testament'. No. How about Moses, did he have a 'Bible'? No. David? No, not the complete 'Bible'; the Torah and possibly a some other books (Job, Psalms) is all David may have seen.

    What about Paul? Well, he may have had access to the "scriptures" (OT) but probably never got a chance to read any of the Four Gospels. Peter? It is very doubtful that he had opportunity to read all 24 of the other finished canonical books (he wrote two more); almost certainly Peter never read John's Apocalypse. Having a complete 'Bible' is a very modern convenience.

    Also, parts of the Jewish and Christian writings were being translated and circulated around the world in the first few centuries AD: into Arabic, Nubian, Persian, Albanian, Gothic, Slavonic, etc. All those Christians only knew Scripture in those languages. Many of these were translations of translations (like from each other).

    The first complete 'Bible' with the 'Old Testament' and the 'New Testament' together under one cover probably wasn't crafted until after 300AD; and it would have been a Greek translation (not actually Hebrew in the OT). Most Christians never knew Hebrew. Pandect 'Bible' manuscripts would be rare for the next several hundred years (only available to the very rich).

    By now, most educated Jews had been reading Targums (Aramaic translations) not Hebrew copies. Before 400AD in the West, literate people (the vast minority) weren't even reading the Greek 'Bible' anymore but rather Latin translations.

    Monastery scribes continued to copy the original language MSS but most Christians didn't actually read Hebrew or Greek copies at that time any more so than we might now. European countries began getting translations at the end of the Middle Ages (mostly translations of other translations, like Latin). Common (non-scholars) Christians today worldwide have little interest in the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek; I have no doubt that has been true of Christians throughout history.

    You intended for us to believe that before the KJV that Christians had the autographs as their 'Bible' and after those "wore out" then "the copies" of those autographs in their original languages were their 'Bible'. You're just flat wrong. During the 1st century the word of God (Gospel) was not written down; it was spoken (read Acts). After that time, the Bible has been known primarily to Christians through translations. We still have copies. Why did you require early foreign Christians to read Hebrew and Greek, when you won't?
     
    #66 franklinmonroe, Feb 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2010
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I would disagree on their Winman's supposed evidence on W&H but we can leave that for now. Your opinions on W&H, like mine, don't have a lot of impact because neither of us have read their writings, just other men's views. The difference is that I admit I am no expert on them and you claim to be one. I do know that I have seen passages like this quoted, then someone else comes along and puts it in context. On Deacon there is no way any reasonable reader could take his comments and turn them into hero worship.

    Can you show me where the NKJV chooses a W&H rendering? Anywhere? Even one verse? Quoting a one time poster on an anonymous internet discussion board is hardly evidence.

    Where did W&H influence the text of the NKJV? Simple question. Will you answer it?
    Or maybe this is really a question we are not supposed to ask?
    I notice you have not been able to prove that the original autographs wore out from use as was you claim. Have you found that evidence yet?

    This is typical of the misleading and deceptive discussion tool used by some in this debate. Of course the NKJV does not use the 'original baseline text source' because we really don't know exactly what text they used in 1610-11. We do know that the NKJV use the same general body of text referred to as the traditional textual body as the KJV.
     
    #67 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2010
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Excellent point. And for nearly 1000 years the whole world used one Bible - the Latin Vulgate. (BTW, there was a great versions debate in Ireland in the 5-6th centuries because some of the monks here were OLO (Old Latin Onlyists). They believed it had lasted for 200 years so there was no need for a new version)

    If indeed, evil men and seducers includes men of God, then surely we should all learn Latin and go back to the Vulgate. It proved itself as the Bible by the which most of the world was exposed to the Gospel.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Much of the W&H stuff is taken from Dr. Wilkinson's book, the foundation stone of the current KJVO doctrine. If you're still learning, SL, then take the time to read that book and learn just WHERE that KJVO stuff comes from!
     
  10. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good afternoon Steven2006

    You said.........
    On the surface you point seems to have merit, but it doesn’t.

    W&H’s heresy is well known:(Having been documented for over 100 years:)
    What good would it do me or anyone, to study their books to see if it is true?

    It would be like studying the book of Mormon, to see it the Mormons were really wrong.
    (All that would be accomplished, is the danger of being deceived yourself.)
     
  11. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Trotter

    You said......
    This tirade, tells us a lot about you. (Not being willing to admit when you are wrong.)
    (Therefore you sink to name calling and personal attacks.)
    I forgive you.

    As for having come to a conclusion about W&H, you are right:
    Any thinking person, would come to the same conclusion as I have.

    This whining about the internet, doesn’t hold water either:
    Because the internet has only been around(like it is today) for about 20 years or so, and Steven2006 chronicled how this criticism of them, predates the internet.

    I am sorry, that you are “fed up with my tripe”: But there is still hope for you.
    --------------------------------------------------
    This line truly interested me: You said........
    Well what is wrong with that: Isn’t anything sacred anymore.
    After all the KJV, is the Bible.
    And you feel qualified to “call the Bible into question”.
    --------------------------------------------------
    And after all this, you accuse me, of having “patronizing posts”.


    You may have grown tired of defending W&H, and what they have tired to do to the Bible. But I am not finished defending God’s Word.
     
  12. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Logos1560

    Nice to hear from you.

    You said.....
    This is true, when your talking about the correct time.
    But we are talking about the Bible, that claims to be perfect, all the time.

    Just because the words in the KJV, are old and may take some work, to understand, does not mean that the KJV, is not working properly or has stopped working.
    (Note: I am not accusing you of saying this, but some do.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    The point I was making, is that anyone & everyone that uses more than one English Bible, is not going to know “for sure”, what the Bible actually says.

    E.G. (One Bible may have 1John 5:7), (While the other doesn’t.) for example:
    Therefore, doubt has been placed in our minds, about God’s Word.
     
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    101
    Well I just don't think you've done the due diligence to understand W&H's positions and their contributions to textual criticism.

    I did notice you have not responded, several times now, to the more germane issues I have raised in response to your questions. Particularly here I am thinking of the misunderstanding of textual criticism and higher criticism you had earlier. This isn't a criticism (no pun intended) but I do wonder where you are at with the more significant issues related to this post.

    One of the unfortunate traits you are exhibiting (I humbly submit) is that of the artful dodger...you keep coming back to the character and intent of W&H when several of us have asked you to move on past them. They are not the main issue when it comes to the matters being discussed.

    Perhaps you could provide us with a list of more credible textual sources since the work of W&H. I know I am interested to see the depth of your research into this area.

    A couple of things I would enjoy to see you answer, if you have the time, specifically are the following:

    1. What is your assessment of Tischendorf's success in creating textual critical solutions to support modern research?

    2. How do you think Von Soden's textual theory differs from W&H in influencing modern textual research? Particularly the variation of the K-text from the Syrian text of W&H?

    3. In Metzger's influential work, how do you reconcile the significant differences between the TR and more historic reconstructions, say the Nestle-Aland version? I'm also thinking of a response along the lines of how the textual variants in both play into the equation?

    4. Most importantly, with the discovery of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) there has been a watershed moment for textual history, how do you see the comparisons with the TR and make up for the deficiencies in the readings?


    This might help me better understand your position and give a better answer. I think we're missing a couple parts of the conversation here. :)

    Well you have called into question the salvation of two men who you do not know. This is a slanderous accusation against gentlemen, who as far as I can tell, were humble servants of the the most High God.

    In doing so you noted a comment from J.W. Burgon, a man who tirelessly refuted any manuscript other than the TR. The severity of his criticisms against W&H ended up becoming so personal that nobody wanted anything to do with by the end of the his career. Additionally, as Greenlee has noted in his text Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, Burgon's criticisms ended with his death and no one else has been able to respond to the refutations of his points with any amount of academic vigor.

    In mentioning Burgon I think it is important to note that your questions, and some of your points of critique are similar to his. Here are some ways that scholars in his day replied to three of his critical points of modern textual criticism:
    1. The traditional text served the Church well for 1500 years, why would God allow a corrupt text to influence the Church?

    The suggestion of textual critical studies isn't to discredit the text. There is not reason to believe the traditional text is either heretical or corrupt. The point of textual criticism (as W&H, and others, developed) helps us see a more clear picture of the original text. We have a faithful text, yes, but we desire a clear text.

    2. Later witnesses must be better than earlier witnesses of the text.

    We have seen in secular ancient literature, which is replete with extant documents, that later texts have had considerably more alteration and must be compared to the more contemporary text of the extant documents for a more faithful witness.

    3. The more traditional has not been refuted and, because it is older, must be intrinsically better.

    This is probably a more subjective assessment of the text. Extensive comparison of text-types has left most scholars convinced that the late text is general inferior, not superior to the text.

    Well Jack Chick is a terrible example of an apologist who attempts to make his points through chastisement and mischaracterizations of individuals (which stands in opposition to how the NT teaches we are respond.) I don't feel comfortable refuting him in this space, but will be happy to engage in a convo in another thread. Pursuing Chick in further here is a red herring imho. It has been a long time since I wrote or did thorough research to refute his views so I will simply leave you with a decent link (I'd post others but can't vouch for them):
    http://skatoolaki.com/tricktracts/index.html

    btw, thanks for the link to W&H site. I appreciated it very much! :thumbs:
    I look forward to your thorough reply.
     
  14. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Ed Edwards

    You said.......
    I agree, their Gospel tracts are pretty cool;
    But Could you help me in that other area please.

    I have asked for it before, yet noone has been able to respond.
    (Can you show me, how or where Chick has been proven to be completely unreliable, when speaking of Bible history and Bibleology?)

    I would truly appreciate this information.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello franklinmonroe

    You said......
    What question are you referring to?
    --------------------------------------------------
    Also you said.......
    I fully agree. And I never said any different.

    Now I did say, that Christians had them, and read them until they wore out;
    (But I never meant that they were all together.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said......
    These are all obvious statements: But where are you heading with them?
    (Are you hinting, that we shouldn’t be making such a big deal about the Bible, because of these facts?!?)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said......
    So your saying, that “nobody read or studied the original manuscripts”.
    When God Gave these epistles to Paul and Peter, instructions were given, “do not read or study these letters”?

    Why do you think the new Testament was written in Greek:
    (It was because Greek was the world’s most spoken language, at that time.)
    This is why the LXX was so popular.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Finally you said......
    I don’t require anything of anybody.
    The point that I was making, had to do with the relatively good condition, the “oldest” manuscripts the W&H used.
    They were old, and still around, because “no born again Christian would read them”!
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    And you have not told us how you know this.
     
  17. Steven2006

    Steven2006 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all due respect, I think that is a big cop out. You declare them unsaved heretics and are denouncing bible translations that millions of Christians use because of these men. Mormonism and the book of Mormon is recognized by all as a cult.

    As far as well known heretics, I posted an excerpt from a book where godly men who have taken the time to read their actual works have stated that was false. Here is how he described what was being said about them.

    "gross misrepresentation, false accusations, faulty logic, and extremely poor scholarship."

    You are basically doing the same and just parroting criticism you have read, while proudly stating you won't take any effort to read their work yourself.

    .
     
    #77 Steven2006, Feb 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2010
  18. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    You really need to read the posts more carefully. The question was in your own quote; it was puncuated by the question mark at the end.
    Actually, you did. The question was about what Christians had for a 'Bible' before the KJV and you said that "they" (meaning early Christians) had the original language "autographs" (meaning something approximately equivalent to the KJV). Scattered manuscripts is not the same as having a 'Bible' as we know it.
    You previously made a big deal about how just the New Testament wasn't a complete 'Bible'. Few Christian in history have had a complete 'Bible'. There have been many great things done by believers without a 'Bible'.

    I gotta leave for church. More later.
     
    #78 franklinmonroe, Feb 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2010
  19. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi C4K

    First you said......
    I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.
    But I am becoming an expert on W&H; And that does not require me to study their writings.
    The study that others have done, seems credible to me.

    A closer look at the book, “The revision revised” reveals, that great care was taken, to document their charges; With quotes from W&H’s own work.
    (And this was back in 1883)
    And as we all know, the character of man, is waxing worse and worse.
    --------------------------------------------------
    As for Deacon’s hero worship:
    I was only going by how upset he seemed to get.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You asked.....
    No I can’t: Not at this moment.
    But I said, “finger prints”, which means that publishers were “influenced”, by W&H’s work.
    And although I can exactly prove it, the evidence seems to be pretty clear here on the BB.
    I mean, would anybody here, every buy any Bible that didn’t take their work into consideration.(Other than me).
    These two giants, have been so lifted up, for so many years, chances are every Bible produced after them, would have been influenced by them.
    That is all I was saying.

    But let me look into, and I will let you know what I find.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Next you said.....
    I don’t think anyone will be able to prove that.
    The point that I was making, is that these manuscripts are what God’s people used to learn God’s will for their lives: It stands to reason that they wore out.
     
  20. Steven2006

    Steven2006 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    This pretty much says it all.
     
Loading...