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!

Textual Criticism

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by KJVBibleThumper, Jan 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 2 of 8
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I work second shift and have to eat lunch and get ready for work. I will get back with you about Streeter's book and about some more inaccurate claims in your post about the NKJV.
     
    #21 Logos1560, Jan 13, 2009
  2. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    First translating any text, requires not only words, but how you use those words. Changing a single word in any sentence, can severely affect the thought that sentence projects.

    KJVBibleThumper is correct, in stating all MV’s came from the Codex Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus. In a round about way, when not directly. The Westcott and Hort, and Nestle-Aland Greek new testaments were both used in all the MV’s, including the NKJV.
    These were translated using those Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus codices.
    If you know anything of these men, you know they were not men of reputation, at least not an honorable one. So how could we expect such men, to produce a text any more honorable than themselves. Especially when using text of questionable! accuracy.

    Most of the defense of the modern versions, come from Talking Heads, repeating what they have been told. It doesn’t take very long to compare the translations of the KJV and the MV’s, for yourself, and come to the conclusion something is amiss. If you do it non-objectively.

    I used to support all versions of the Bible, until I came to the conclusion (“by myself”) that I no longer could. Now you can argue until the Lord comes, and you will not change my opinion, there is no use. I don’t even want to be involved in this thread, but I could not stand by and not come to the defense of an obvious underdog. Not that he is, but you have made him to seem that way.
     
    #22 Samuel Owen, Jan 13, 2009
  3. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    The KJV is still copyrighted - it is owned by the Crown.

    This is a lie. From James White's response to Gail Riplinger:

    That is using the KJV as a standard rather than the manuscript evidence. By the way, the changes are mostly spelling errors. Guess that makes a HUGE difference, huh?

    Can you provide proof of this?

    I'd like to see the verses in context and the original Hebrew or Greek please. That would certainly be helpful and easy enough to do for you. I'd like to see if the verses aren't using synonyms or properly updated words which would not change any doctrine at all.

    6. The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.
    [/quote]

    Maybe let's see these verses side by side in context. I'll start:

    John 1:3
    KJV "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

    Oh wait - what did you say? The KJV says that things were made by Jesus Christ? That was through Bible Gateway. Let me check my old Oxford from my Grandfather-in-law. Hmmm - Says the same thing.

    Acts 3:13, 3:26
    KJV 3:13 "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go."

    NKJV "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go."

    3:26
    KJV "Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."

    NKJV "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”"

    OK - "Son" is changed to Servant. Let's see what the Greek says....OK - it can mean either one. Interestingly enough, the KJV translators mostly translated this word as servant 10 times, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1. The ONLY two times it is translated as "Son" are these two verses. Check out some of the other uses of the word and see if it is wrongly interpreted (Matthew 2:16, 8:6, 8:8, 8:13...)

    As for the "Jesus" being removed, it replaces it with the logical "he" as is done in the modern language. "And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him." In this verse, you would not speak that way and as such, the NKJV writers changed it to reflect such. To say "as he sat ..., Jesus" does not take Jesus out of the Scriptures at all. That's a joke argument, IMO.

    [quoe] 7. The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified", and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.
    [/quote]

    Well, if you understood Greek, you'd see that the NKJV is actually making the meaning MORE clear rather than less clear. An active verb needs to be translated as such. The NKJV translators did the correct thing.

    It certainly does not. The Greek word for "imaginations" does not mean imagination like we think today. It means " a reckoning, computation; a reasoning: such as is hostile to the Christian faith a judgment, decision: such as conscience passes" The NKJV is again superior in this passage.

    Again - look up the meaning of the Greek term that is translated as heretick. "fitted or able to take or choose a thing; schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine; heretic" So what do you think?

    (Need to do this in 2 posts...)
     
    #23 annsni, Jan 13, 2009
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Post #2

    And it matches the Greek that God had the New Testament written in. "corrupt" in this passage means " to be a retailer, to peddle; to make money by selling anything; to get sordid gain by dealing in anything, to do a thing for base gain; to trade in the word of God; to try to get base gain by teaching divine truth; to corrupt, to adulterate; peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain"

    I will warn you that the accusation of "perversion" is against BB rules. I've reported your post for the numerous "perversion" accusation here.

    There is no difference between the two readings in meaning.

    This has been addressed. Neither has the KJV. "study" does not mean in the KJV vernacular what it means today in the 21st century vernacular.

    How say that "science" would mean what it truly did in 1611? I would figure "biology" or "chemistry" when it means "knowledge". That is the meaning of the Greek word. It seems your arguments are not with modern scholars but God who wrote His Word in that particular language.

    Man - this is getting tiresome. Why not check the meaning of the Greek word? OK fine - I'll put it here: "to ask, beg, call for, crave, desire, require". Want to know how the great KJV translators translated this word in the KJV? Well, they translated it as ask 48 times, desire 17, beg 2, require 2, crave 1, call for 1. What is that? They require it twice out of the 71 times that word is used in the NT. Hmmmm...

    2 Cor. 5:17
    KJV: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
    NKJV: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

    Mark 16:15
    KJV: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
    NKJV: And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.


    OK - so WHERE is the cross reference here? We become a new creation - not a new creature. We are not martians or horses or something but an entirely new creation. As for the Mark 16 passage, I see no difference and have NO clue why you brought this in except in ignorance.
     
    #24 annsni, Jan 13, 2009
  5. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it can. But it does not always.

    He is actually only partially correct. The MVs use all manuscript evidence, not just a couple or a few.

    False on a number of fronts. Westcott and Hort have been blamed for a lot of stuff they did not do. but more to the point, textual criticism is a work that can be done by anyone who knows language and transcriptional probabilities. It is not solely the work of believers.

    Indeed. On the other hand, if you do it objectively, you will quickly conclude that they are both the Word of God. The KJV has no special standing.

    You should abandon doing things "by yourself." God has gifted the church with men who know far more than you and I and who serve to teach us so as to correct our ignorance on issues. Let's not ignore them.

    That's unfortunate. The word of God should correct our errors, and when someone states that they will not listen and will not be changed, they are indeed in a bad place.
     
    #25 Pastor Larry, Jan 13, 2009
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I find this ironic.
     
    #26 Mexdeaf, Jan 13, 2009
  7. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Textual criticism has only one purpose: Reconstruct the original document. Scrivener's TR is the only text that I know of that was done to support a version, and it was done to support the KJV. The Eclectic text was not done to overthrow any Greek text.

    Most of this is unprovable. There is no evidence that the TR existed in the early centuries of the church. Streeter sold you a bill of goods here.

    That's an abominable use of the Scriptures. The churches in Revelation are not church ages. That pure and utter nonsense.

    Nonsense. If Streeter is a legitimate "Dr." then he should know better. When you see people say things like this, you should run the other way.

    And with good reason. This is the way texts get copied. Streeter would have you believe that God couldn't preserve his word until very late in church history and only then through numerous editions correcting errors. It not only makes no sense; it is patently unbiblical. The Bible speaks to the issue both in precept and in example. There is no biblical support for Streeter's comments.
     
    #27 Pastor Larry, Jan 13, 2009
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Our dear young brother is merely producing what he has picked up in Bible classes at the admittedly KJVO PCC.

    Since he brought up a discussion based on what he has learned, there is nothing wrong with presenting him with another side.

    I wish men had challenged my thinking more when I was a young fella. I believed far too much that I heard in Bible college without questioning, and I only read sources that agreed. Big mistake.
     
    #28 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2009
  9. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roger, sadly, I have done this same.
    On this very issue in fact, among others.
     
    #29 Dale-c, Jan 13, 2009
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    annsi, nice job in your thorough two-part response.
    But wait, annsi! The joke gets much worse. In Mark 2:15 the first ocurrence of "Jesus" ("... as Jesus sat at meat...") is NOT supported by the TR. That's right! The Textus Receptus Greek text does not have Iesous (Strong's #2424, the proper name JESUS) there, but actually has the different word autos (Strong's #846, which is a pronoun which should be translated as he/she/it depending upon the gender of the antecedent).

    According to the TR itself, Mark 2:15 would accurately read "... as he sat at meat...". The KJV translators slipped in an extra "Jesus". This is not a mistranslation; it is a willful substitution (not italicized either). This is not a printer's error. The KJV-Onlyists gladly say when the MVs are in error by 'removing' a word but they will never admit that the KJV is in error for 'adding' a word.

    I've covered this verse before on the BB --http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37442&page=13
     
    #30 franklinmonroe, Jan 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2009
  11. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Thanks! Between homeschooling and work, that took a LONG time to do, but it was fun. :)

    Oh my word!! You mean they ADDED to the Bible???? Well, that does it! I'll toss this Oxford on the fire tonight.

    Gracious! It's so hard to be hit with your own argument, huh?

    Thanks for the info! :)

    Once I went searching on Biblegateway for the term "Jesus Christ", I think it was. The KJV had the least number of it occuring compared to the NIV (who had the highest number). And they say the modern versions remove Jesus' name. LOL
     
    #31 annsni, Jan 13, 2009
  12. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    With regard to textual Criticism I agree with J.L. Dagg

     
    #32 Thinkingstuff, Jan 13, 2009
  13. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now lets look at the whole verse. Since it is obvious that Jesus, is the person in subject here. I see no harm whether you say “he” or “Jesus”. Maybe the KJV translators thought that is the way it should have been, I probably would also.

    This is not substituting a word, only clarifying one. As “he” Jesus is definately the “he” being mentioned here. And does no harm whatsoever to the meaning, or thought of the verse.

    M'r:2:15: And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
     
    #33 Samuel Owen, Jan 13, 2009
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is sad, though, is that he is being taught schismatic teaching that will poison rational study and thought. He is a just the product; the source itself - schools/pastors attacking the historic doctrine of inspiration and teaching such lies - God will not hold guiltless.

    No smilie
     
    #34 Dr. Bob, Jan 13, 2009
  15. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    What is funny is that today, in homeschooling my 3rd grader, we're going over pronouns. :) So this is quite fresh in my mind. LOL
     
    #35 annsni, Jan 13, 2009
  16. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you want to have a problem with a verse. Don’t worry about 2:15, but take a look at this one, this I do take exception to.

    M'r:2:17: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. KJV

    M’r:2:17: And hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. NASB

    The problem with the NASB here, is what did Jesus call sinners for, dinner, play ball, get drunk, or to Repent. If it were not for the KJV, I could say anyone of these things, and you would be none the wiser.

    Of course that would be sort of foolish to say such a thing, but someone could, and would have an opportunity since the NASB does not state a clear point here.
     
    #36 Samuel Owen, Jan 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2009
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You're right.It was foolish for you to say such a thing.

    By the way,I have never seen "M'r" before as an abbreviation for Mark.

    NASBU :And Jesus answered and said to them,"It is not those who are well who need a physician,but those who are sick.I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:31,32)
     
    #37 Rippon, Jan 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2009
  18. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    As Rippon has pointed out, the Scriptures are clear - we ARE called to repentance. However, Mark did not write "to repentance" when he wrote his gospel. Instead, this is a case of "parallel passage corruption". What that means is that the text is in two separate passages of Scripture and one is not as "full" as the other and, in error or hoping to fix what they thought was an error, the scribes added the additional information to the shorter passage. So, in this case, Luke has the added "to repentance" but the Mark passage didn't. It would most likely be a familiar passage and the scribe copying Mark would have added in the additional text to either correct what he thought was left out or he was familiar with the verse in Luke and copied it as the Luke passage read.

    This is a typical variant that occurs in the gospels and the KJVO argument would be much stronger if the "removal of repentance" was consistent through ALL occurrences of this passage. However, we can see that it IS in Luke so those who wanted to take out the idea of repentance did an extremely poor job. Not to mention the consistency of Scripture speaking of repentance.

    This is quite a weak argument.
     
    #38 annsni, Jan 13, 2009
  19. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    No argument intended, I was just pointing out before I would get upset about Mark2:15, I would much quicker take exception to this verse. Mark 2:17 that is.

    M'r: Just happens to be the way the Bible program on my computer, abbreviates Mark.
     
    #39 Samuel Owen, Jan 13, 2009
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't take exception to any Bible verse.But I do take exception to the doctrine of KJVO'ism.
     
    #40 Rippon, Jan 13, 2009
Page 2 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...