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!

Splitting Hairs?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Thermodynamics, Feb 4, 2009.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A.W.Pink said that we all have a bit of a pontiff within us sometimes.It's a wrong tendency.But this one specializes in busting the balloons of pomposity.

    The Lord did not tell B4L any such thing about Bible versions causing confusion ect.His opinion was self-derived.
     
  2. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is this your opinion Pope Rippon, or did God tell you so Himself:laugh: ?
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's my common-sense edict.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    That statement is lame.

    One cannot figure how how God preserved both sets of messages thus MAGNIFYING HIS WORD if one assumes the negative.

    IF one believes the NIV is the Written Word of God, and it says:
    2 Cor 6:12 (NIV):
    We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.

    and if one believs that 'if two versions contradict, one is wrong'.
    Then when one reads:

    2Co 6:12 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Yee are not straitened in vs, but yee are straitned in your owne bowels.

    Then one would have to assume:
    The KJV1611 Edition is WRONG.

    However, if one assumes that both are correct and used by God to preserve His inerrant and perfect Written Word l- then one has MAGNIFIED the Word of the Lord. (not to mention understand what these obscure Greek metaphors are all about :0 )

    Psalm 34:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
    O magnifie the Lord with me,
    and let vs exalt his name together
    .


    If you are tired of belittling the Lord and wish to help the rest of us MAGNIFY HIS NAME -- Believe the following:
     
  5. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't think I have spoken on preservation, but I believe that God has preserved the essence of His word, but not the actual text. The inspired, infallible word is in the original manuscripts only.

    I do believe that we have had responsible people down through history who have done their very best to maintain the Bible for all time. I can trust the versions I have to develop a consistent and true theology. This combined with history, an understanding of customs and truth of the word verified by multiple passages and not resting on one isolated verse.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact. Every Bible translation made by man is flawed.



    HankD
     
  7. Thermodynamics

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good post, I more or less agree with you Jim. I think there is a case to be made that what we have today in the best manuscripts is about 98-99 accurate in terms of what was contained in the originals. As to the other 1-2% most of it is very minor in terms how it differs from the originals as I undrestand it. The Bible (in any version) is by far the best preserved document that we have from the ancient world and I believe we can have absolute faith in the teachings that it contains.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well that's certainly a breath of fresh air!
     
  9. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

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

    You said.......
    You and Rippon, should start a club:

    He claims to know what the LORD says to people, and you claim to know what Bible I use.

    It appears that you are grasping at straws here, by trying to make me sound foolish and backward.

    But I forgive you.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You also keep attributing quotes to me, that I have not said..........
    I do not recall saying these exact words, but this is okey, because I happen to agree with this statement.
    --------------------------------------------------
    For your information, I am fluent in Greek, and just happen to have access to at lest 346 ancient manuscripts, that include these exact words, in 1John 5:7.
    I have personally studied almost half of them, and have verified this fact.

    That sounded pretty good didn’t it.
    By the way, I felt free to say this, because you already think I am a liar........
    No, I am not a liar, but you are misinformed.

    A lot more educated men, than you or I, can attest to the truthfulness of my stand on 1John 5:7, like.........
    William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Wycliffe, Mathew Parker, John Bunyan, John Calvin, Theodore Beza,
    William Whittingham, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole et.al

    Now you can call all of these men morons if you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Oh, by the way, since you called me liar in this post, I almost didn’t respond to it, but then you also said........

    I feel the same way. So why don’t you stop?
     
  10. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi Jim1999

    Always nice to read posts.

    And although you post #145, was very interesting, I have one problem with it.......
    You said...........
    I don’t agree, that God depended upon “people”, “doing their very best to maintain the Bible”. Even responsible ones.

    Heaven help us, if God gave mankind the original manuscripts, and then turned His back on what happened to them.

    I believe that God providentially protected His Word, from copy errors.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now some might ask, “well what about the Codex Vaticanus, etc.”

    For some reason, God in His wisdom, allowed “a few”, bad copied to be made.
    But today, these “bad copies”, are being held up as the best.


    Jim, I am not looking for a fight; This is just where I stand.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Do you believe that God providentially protected His word from printing errors? Or did He allow mistakes in His perfect word?

    There is a great divergence here. Copy errors are the pre-printing press equivalent of printing errors.
     
    #151 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  12. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

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

    When I said..........
    I was referring to the copies made of the original manuscripts;
    (And not printing press errors, etc.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    I am glad to have a Bible, almost free from “printing errors”.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    But those copy error are the pre-printing press equivalent. Printing errors are the copy errors of modernity. So do you contend that God stopped protecting His word from copy errors once the printing press was invented? Or did His preservation from copy errors only apply to the first copies from the original manuscripts? When did God stop protecting His word from copy errors?

    BTW - since you have pinned your flag to the 1611 KJV you might want to quote that in your signature line instead of one of the later editions.
     
    #153 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, I did not call you a liar. (FTR, I have not ever called any BB member "a liar" in more than 8,000 posts on the BB.) What I said was you were repeating the lie(s) of another. Here is my exact quote.
    And in fact, you might notice that I said I did not believe you were attempting to intentionally decieve anyone, BTW.

    I gave an example where you stated the majority of Byzantine manuscripts contained the Johannine comma, as an example, simply because you are the one who brought that up into the conversations, as your personal "Great Bible Test.". I assure you that I gave a direct quote, although it was not from this thread, but one from a month and a half ago, which I happened on, when I was searching for something else.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1340868&postcount=83

    I do not attribute any quote to another that they did not say, unless I accidentally misread a multiple quoted series of quotes, which I will grant, happened one time previously that I know of, and maybe one other time, in my three years here. And I did print an apology, in that known instance. I can and do speak for no other, in this.

    Since Byzantine manuscripts, by definition are Greek manuscripts, and I gave the currently known number of Greek manuscripts that contain the Johannine comma in any form, my statement holds. (You did just claim to be fluent in Greek, I believe, so you should undoubtedly recognize that the Vulgate and Latin versions are not in the Greek language, I think.) I am aware of the fact that one can find this in the multiple copies of the Vulgate, FTR, as well as in the writings of some of the Latin/Roman church persuasion, after ~400. I do find it very significant that that verse, were it genuine, should not have been used in the earliest days of the Christological controversies, by such as Irenaeus, Chrystostom, Origen and Augustine (the last two of whom both would and did write about virtually anything and everything) from what I'm able to ascertain, nor does there seem to be any hint of this in the early non-Greek versions, as well, outside of that of the Latin church, beginning after some centuries.

    In fact, both William Tyndale, in his revisions of his own 1525 NT, and Miles Coverdale placed the verse in parentheses and brackets, signifying their own doubtfulness as to its genuineness, so let's not misrepresent this, in that simply it is found in the translations that bear their names.

    I have not attempted to make you or any other "sound foolish and backward" anywhere.

    But neither have I suggested, as did you, that 'if another was smart, they would agree with my choice of a version', either.
    Nor have I 'put down' all others, except for a select handful of Bible versions, with a 'blanket swipe,' even when explaining why I disagree with any in a particular rendering of any verse.
    Nor have I 'put down' every extant church for the last almost 60 years.
    Nor have I taken a swipe at every Christian alive.
    Nor have I taken any swipes at all Bible students, teachers and translators of the last century and a half.

    Any of these things starting to sound remotely familiar to some of your practices?

    Finally, FTR, I have never once used either the word "moron" or "morons" on the BB, before this post, in my response to you, since you brought it up.

    I really do not like to spend my time in defending myself, but I do not like being misrepresented. I have made 8000 posts in 3 Years on the BB, in well over half of the multiple forums. My positions (and history) should be fairly clear to anyone who is really interested.

    Ed
     
    #154 EdSutton, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  15. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree that these men are not morons, and are to be commended for the service they have performed in the Lord's work. Nonetheless, I'm sure that they have done things you would probably not support. EdSutton has just informed you that Tyndale and Coverdale indicated doubt in their text concerning 1 John 5:7. You have been informed previously that Tyndale lacks some of the same verses that the MVs are criticized for 'omitting'. Another example perhaps, is some do NOT use "virgin" at Matthew 1:23 --
    Beholde a mayde shall be with chylde and shall brynge forthe a sonne and they shall call his name Emanuel which is by interpretacion God with vs. (Tyndale 1534)

    Beholde, a mayde shall be with chylde, and shall brynge forth a sonne, and they shall call his name Emanuel, which is by interpretacion, God wt vs. (Coverdale)
    You are on record saying that Coverdale and Tyndale's text are an acceptable versions for you; but it seems rather inconsistent to endorse these while at the same time universally condemning MVs (including the NKJV) on what are essentially the same issues.
     
    #155 franklinmonroe, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Since it seems to be stilllearning's contention that the 1769 KJV is literally perfect even down to an orthographic level now (except for maybe a few pesky typos): Why does your Bible translation have in it about 12,000 different English words when these verses you invoked clearly state that the Lord God has only one "word" (singular tense)?

    You're not going to have us reinterpret the term "word" to have meaning other than its obvious straightforward understanding, are you? You can't trust men to just imagine morphemes however they like; then there could be no end to the error that might occur! If you can justify "word" to indicate 'many words', then some one else might interpret it to mean something like 'message' and that could just lead to confusion.

    Note: the preceding message (or should I say word?) was pure sarcasm to make the point that these verses have nothing to do with translations.
     
    #156 franklinmonroe, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    The 1611 KJV has "title" (a single 'tee'). Did the later KJV editions add a title (or a tittle?) when inserting a second 'tee'?

    Nevermind the fact that the words in Greek (iota and keraia) make no actual reference to Hebrew writing or characters: Does your 1769 KJV have genuine jots and tittles?

    According one source, the Jewish scriptures contain 8,674 Hebrew words and the apostolic scriptures have 5,624 Greek words (over 14,200 total words). The KJV has only about 12,000 different English words. Even if every original language word was somehow represented by an English word (and we know that is not the case), and every original language character had a corresponding English alphanumeric symbol (which also is not the reality), then still 2,200 words-worth of jots and titles would have passed away.

    So, what light does this verse shed on translations?
     
    #157 franklinmonroe, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
  18. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    FTR, I do not recall previously speaking of Messers Matthew Parker, John Bunyan, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, or William Cole, at any length on the BB. Perhaps I may have commented on any or all of them in passing, should another have brought any or all of them up.

    However, I am fairly certain that I have not denigrated William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, or William Whittingham, in any manner, and certainly not in the manner in which you attempt here to imply. I may have disagreed with something, but certainly never called into question the intelligence of any of them, by any stretch. In fact, here is part of what I have said about three of these, and the Bible, where I responded to a post made by KJVBibleThumper, on a thread in which you endorsed at least one post made by him, BTW.
    And, on another post, responding to the same quote.
    I do not believe I have specifically spoken to Dr. John Calvin (Yes, John Calvin, just as John Wycliffe, possessed an earned doctorate.) on the subject of the Bible texts, but I could also find similar positive comments I have made about the labors of Theodore Beza and William Whittingham on the Bible.

    I would wonder if you are willing to give the same credit to John Nelson Darby that I do, and give to the above however, considering Darby also (apparently) either did not believe in the genuineness of the Johannine Comma, or did not find there to be sufficient Greek textual support for it?
    FTR, I would note that Darby died 70 years prior to your arbitrary date of 1952 for a 'spiritual decline' of the church, and while Benjamin. B. Warfield was basically "still but a pup", as the country folk around here might say.

    Ed
     
    #158 EdSutton, Feb 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2009
Loading...