Two philosophies

Thomas,

Please don't charge me with being disingenuous or with not understanding. The first is certianly not true, and I don't think the second is true. He seemed to be saying that if the Alexandrian textform was used by the early church, we should have "ample citations" from it (I believe that was the word he used). I see no reason for that to be logically demanded. Furthermore, since the differences between the texts are relatively infrequent, citing the Alexanderian text would in most cases look just like citing the Byazantine text.

His argument seems to demand that enough disputed texts be cited in order to show a preponderance. That is not a logical consequent to the premise that the early church used the Alexandrian textform. They may simply have not cited the disputed passages; or those citations might not have been preserved for us.

 

It seems your "one or the other" did not account for other legitimate options.

When he talked about citations, he did not limit his comments to variants, so my comments were not limited to variants. My comments were made in view of the whole corpus of citations. So those two options above should have included "misunderstanding," and that would include my misunderstanding of his complaint, as well as your misunderstanding of my complaint.

But I don't think the absence of them proves the opposite. That is my point about a non sequitur. The presence of them would prove use. The absence of them does not prove disuse.

 

David Sorenson claimed that "one stream of Bibles has always been associated with belief and the other has largely been connected with
apostasy" (p. 44).

Sorenson skips over or ignores the many facts that conflict with his case for a KJV-only view. Is there actual evidence that identifies and names all the copiers of the manuscripts that are claimed to support the Received Text and is there evidence that shows that there were all genuine believers? Were there no copiers of Greek manuscripts that are part of the Byzantine text that were Roman Catholics? Were all the copiers that were Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox doctrinally sound genuine believers? In addition, the copiers that were supposed to be preserving the Byzantine N. T. text were at the same time preserving the Greek LXX O. T. text. Is it consistent to claim that these trusted copiers were preserving the correct N. T. text but the wrong O. T. text? The early textual critics that prepared the first Greek N. T. texts for printers such as Erasmus and those who worked on the Complutensian were Roman Catholics. Robert Stephanus was a Roman Catholic during part of the time he edited the Greek text, and he is said to have proclaimed his conversion to Protestantism only in the last edition of his Greek text. Stephanus, who had served as royal printer to French King Francis I (a Roman Catholic) also prepared and edited several editions of the Latin Vulgate. One of the sources said to have been used by the KJV translators [the Antwerp Polyglot] was edited and printed by Roman Catholics. One of the other editions of the Hebrew text that was available to the KJV translators was also printed by Daniel Bomberg, a Roman Catholic. The editor of the Bomberg's First Rabbinic Bible, Felix Pratensis, was a Roman Catholic. The editor of Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible, Jacob ben Chayim, seems to have been an unconverted Jew. The copiers of the Hebrew manuscripts from A. D. 100 until the time the text was printed were unconverted Jews, not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. Was the church preserving the Hebrew Masoretic text before the 1500's?

Can Soronson's claim that "one stream of Bibles has always been associated with belief" [Biblical belief and acceptance of sound doctrine] be consistently supported with valid historical evidence from A. D. 100 until this day?

Sorenson seems to be painting an one-sided picture that distorts some of the known historical evidence and seems to be based on many unproven assumptions and speculations. Sorenson's logic seems to be inconsistent and often subjective, and he does not actually prove his case by Scripture.

I accept the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, but I do not think that they should be defended with inconsistencies and misleading statements and with a misrepresentation of the other claimed stream of Bibles.

In addition, there have been clear influences back and forth between the two claimed streams of Bibles. There were several readings from the Latin Vulgate (on the claimed bad stream of Bibles) that entered translations on the claimed good stream of Bibles.

 

MOre importantly, Sorenson is incorrect. Many people committed to verbal plenary inspiration use the "new stream of Bibles." Remember, the fact that someone can make a claim does not mean the claim is valid.

 

If that is true, then the translators of the MV's claim that 'some ancient manuscripts omit this verse' may not be valid.

Hmmmm......

 

They are as valid as the claims that they DO belong.

 

Did you think before you said that??? ... A claim that "some ancient manuscripts omit this verse" is a verifiable factual claim. You can look at the manuscript in question and see that said verse is missing.

The question if "Should the verse have been omitted or included" is a claim open to debate.

BTW, the original KJV included some similar marginal comments if my memory serves me correctly.

 

Pastor Larry: //BTW, the original KJV included some similar marginal comments if my memory serves me correctly.//

How about these (all from the original KJV1611):

KJV1611, Mt 1:11 "Iosias begate Iechonias"; footnote,
"Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias"

KJV1611, Mt 26:26 "and blessed it";
footnote, "Many Greeke copies haue, gave thanks"

KJV1611, Lk 10:22 "All things";
footnote, "Many ancient copies adde these words,
And turning to his Disciples he said."

KJV1611, Luke 17:36,
footnote: "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

KJV1611, Ac 13:18 "suffered he their manners";
footnote, "Gr ETROPOFORRHSEN, perhaps, for ETROFOFORHSEN, as a nurse beareth or feedeth her childe, Deut 1.31, 2 macc 7.27. according to the Sept[uagint] and so Chrysost[om]"

KJV1611, Ac 25:6 "more then ten dayes";
footnote, "Or, as some copies reade, no more than eight or ten dayes"

KJV1611, 1Co 15:31 "your reioycing";
footnote, "Some read, our"

KJV1611, 1Cor 15:55 "O grave";
footnote, "Or, hell"

KJV1611, Eph 6:9 "that your master";
footnote: Some reade, both your and their master"

KJV1611, Jas 2:18 "without thy workes"
footnote: Some copies reade, by thy workes"

KJV1611, 1Pet 2:21 "suffered for us";
footnote: Some reade, for you"

KJV1611, 2Pet 2:2 "pernicious wayes";
footnote: "Or, Lascivious wayes, *as some copies reade*"

 

With examples like: Gen 3(Eve),Numbers 22:12-13(Balaam),Luke 4:10-11,John 16:9,OMISSION is the norm when God's word is involved!

 

Yes, assuming the KJVs alone are Word of God.
But, assuming that my NIV is the Word of God,
we see others have ADDED to the written word of God.

 

None of which have anythign to do with Bible versions. Gen 3 contains no omission. Satan outright denied what God said, after it was accurately reported what God did say. Balaam was not able to change the word of God. Luke 4 nor John 16 contain any omissions from God's word. Clearly, you are incorrect in your assertion (yet again).

 

Are you that blind?!

 

What do you mean? My answer clearly indicated that I can read Scripture plainly and understand it. I don't need to distort it to support a false doctrine.

 

So, when Erasmus took his few manuscripts plus Vulgate and picked and chose what to put into his new Greek text, it was belief, but when someone does the same thing today, it isn't? How do you and Sorenson know? Do you have some kind of great insight into the hearts of every person that ever copied/translated a biblical text that we don't? What about other Bibles that use the same underlying texts as the KJV? How come they are rejected by so many that claim that the underlying text is the issue? If that were the case, I think they would welcome a modern English translation of those same texts.

 

But Bob, again, I don't think you are quite handling the truth properly. Very few times, if any, is a variant based on "only one" text. Furthermore, when it is, or in teh bigger picture, when the Byzantine reading is rejected, it is a rejection by comparison, not by default. In other words, the modern texts look at all the evidence and make a decision based on that. Erasmus did not look at all the evidence, so his was not a knowing rejection; it was a default rejection.

The problem with your side is that too often you paint a certain view that isn't true, or accurate. It helps your side to be sure, but not legitimately since it based on a faultly presentation.

Why cannot we get past these very elementary but misleading arguments?

This fundamental belief does not really play a factor, at least if you understand the argument. Weighing, counting, and the use of churches do not all point to the Byzantine text based on belief in inspiration and preservation. The doctrine of inspiration and preserveation does not specify any textual family or any text critical approach. Again, you are presenting a view that is not accurate in hopes of swaying some to your side.

It would be better to present the facts straightforwardly and let the evidence lead where it does. The Byzantine text may indeed by more accurate, or more likely to be accurate, but not because of Erasmus' method of text criticism, nor because of a belief in inspiration and preservation.

 

Erasmus kicked Vaticanus manuscript out of his office because he rejected it.