| Poster | Thread |
| | Re: | | Diane, I'm not familiar with the ISV. A new modern version comes off the press about every 6 months. Who can keep up?? Make$ me wi$h I had gone into publi$hing... $$
But I'll look into it. I will tell you upfront tho that if it is based on the Alexandrian Text (as [b]all[/b] modern versions are) I will reject it.
Krispy |
|  2006/3/22 13:55 | | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
If thats the case, then how did the first century church fathers quote it in their own writings? Thats an ancient witness. They quoted it from somewhere, and attributed it to Paul. It didnt just show up in the 7th century, it had to exist for it to be quoted in the 1st century. (This is documented in Dean Burgeon's book)
You keep saying this, but it is not entirely true. First of all, there are very few "first century fathers" to draw from. At best, there is part of the Didache, Clement of Rome, and they don't quote a whole lot of bible as it is. The notion that most of the NT could be reconstructed from these guys is laughable.
Even if you toss in Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin from mid-second century, you'd still have a TON of unquoted NT. The early church fathers don't start quoting a lot of the Bible until the late second and early third centuries. One could indeed rebuild most the NT from what is said in the entirty of the ante-nicene fathers (4 centuries), but it is a gross exageration and highly misleading to say first century fathers.
Also, the fathers were not always right in what they quoted. Sometimes they quote stuff that frankly doesn't exist, kinda like a lot of people today who say something along the lines of, "The bible says that if your good deeds outweigh your bad, you'll go to heaven." If memory serves correct, I think it was Clement of Rome(?) who quoted a verse from the OT about how "The Lord will reign from a tree." However, when one searches the OT, no such verse exists.
So consider this. Is it not possible that one of the early fathers misquoted whatever it is they think they were quoting (as their quotations are not always exact), and in misquoting a verse (either through bad memory, loose paraphrase, or even a defective manuscript they had), a later scribe who was familiar with their writings came across a place in the NT while copying and thought "hey! there is a verse missing here! I know it's quoted in such-and-such father, but it's not in my own manuscript, therefore, I'll insert what they said should be here!"
Is that not a realistic possibility, especially in the demonstrated verse?
Out of curisoity, I just looked up what Metzger has to say in his UBS4 commentary, that explains why 8:37 is omitted:
Quote:
Verse 37 is a Western addition not found in (names a bunch of manuscripts whose symbols I don't know how to type on SI), but is read with many minor variations (quotes more symbols). There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. ...
The formula "pisteuo... Christon" was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in a margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative. Although the earliest known NT manuscript that contains the words dates from the 6th century, the tradtion of the Ethiopian's confession of faith in Christ was currren as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it...
Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms.2), it stands in the margin of another(ms.4), from which he inserted it into his text becaused he "judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes."
Interesting thoughts by Metzger. The Comitte behind this ruled with absolute certainty that they don't believe this verse to be original to the text. Amazing, Erasmus didn't even have it in one of his copies, and even the copy that he did have it, it was in a margin! Based on the fact that it was in the margin, he decided to simply add it to his text.
Maybe Erasmus judgment was faulty, especially considering the manuscript support for the addition is very very short, not to mention divided on the wording!
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:00 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
You keep saying this, but it is not entirely true. First of all, there are very few "first century fathers" to draw from. At best, there is part of the Didache, Clement of Rome, and they don't quote a whole lot of bible as it is. The notion that most of the NT could be reconstructed from these guys is laughable.
Even if you toss in Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin from mid-second century, you'd still have a TON of unquoted NT. The early church fathers don't start quoting a lot of the Bible until the late second and early third centuries. One could indeed rebuild most the NT from what is said in the entirty of the ante-nicene fathers (4 centuries), but it is a gross exageration and highly misleading to say first century fathers.
KJ... have you ever read anything by Dean Burgeon, or reviewed all the information that he compiled about the writings of the first century church fathers? I would suggest you do that before you dismiss me on this because I know you're misinformed. I suspect you've been taught what you're saying, but havent done the research yourself (the same thing you say to me about Greek).
What you're referring to is what "scholars" call the "Silent Centuries" ... 100 AD to 400 AD ... but the fact is, those centuries were anything BUT silent, and thats a fact. Archeology has proven your position to be false, but yet the professors keep right on teaching it.
I know for a fact that I am correct on this.
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/22 14:10 | | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
Anyway, whoever it was who called him a heretic, you need to look a little further. Here is a brief article about him. If his view of the authority of the Overseer is his main error... I would hardly call him a heretic. He was a champion for the Lord against the poison of the Gnostics.
According to 3 John 1:9-11, with Diotrephes engaged in similar behavior. Yes, Ignatius was rather orthodox by all apperances in much of what he said. However, his solution for unity was to have everybody fall under a single bishop. This movement Ignatius was part of and leading, eventually gave rise to the Roman Catholic church with all her popes, cardnials, etc.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:12 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi Krispy... Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It completely destroys any claim that the King James Version is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God. It also proves that the translators were indeed human, and prone to all of the flaws that the rest of us are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I claim they were otherwise?
It just seems that you were trying to suggest that either the KJV was the "perfect and preserved" Word of God or it was "perverted." For instance, you earlier wrote:Quote:
"But if the truth was tainted by human hands, no matter how small, then by the definition of the word... it has been perverted."
It does not mean that it is "perverted" in a sense that it was willfully altered. It just means that the translators of the King James Version were just as susceptable to error as the rest of us (and the translators of versions like the NIV). Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1611 KJV
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good."
Current KJV
"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am not mistaken, that was an error made by the printer, not the translators. Unless you have proof otherwise, I would look for a better example.
If this was merely an "error made by the printer," then it went uncorrected for over 150 years. But there are many other errors that cannot simply be attributed to printing. While there were also alot of spelling and copy errors, there were also some major grammar, omission and addition errors too. However, there are hundreds of such errors that were corrected in the subsequent revisions of the KJV. The internet at my University is crawling along right now -- so it would take some time for me to look them up. Like I said before, you can easily obtain a version of the 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV. There are several websites that list these errors (which could then be verified by looking up the verses yourself). Some of these websites actually have photographs of pages from an original 1611 KJV edition, in order to demonstrate these changes. The purpose of most of these websites is to refute the "[i]KJV-only[/i]" claim that the KJV is the "perfect and preserved Word of God."
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:12 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
KJ... have you ever read anything by Dean Burgeon, or reviewed all the information that he compiled about the writings of the first century church fathers? I would suggest you do that before you dismiss me on this because I know you're misinformed. I suspect you've been taught what you're saying, but havent done the research yourself (the same thing you say to me about Greek).
I don't need to review anything by him to know he's wrong (or perhaps simply your representation of him). I've personally read the writings of the fathers from the first century, some of the documents several times. There is simply no way you can reconstruct the NT from the writings of the first century. You couldn't even come close.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:22 | Profile | KingJimmy
Member
Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC
| | Re: | | Quote:
What you're referring to is what "scholars" call the "Silent Centuries" ... 100 AD to 400 AD ... but the fact is, those centuries were anything BUT silent, and thats a fact. Archeology has proven your position to be false, but yet the professors keep right on teaching it.
I know for a fact that I am correct on this.
Archeology has not proven my position to be false. I am simply quoting from the available Greek manuscripts that we have, the manuscripts that available for all to see (if you can read Greek that is... oops I forget, you can't). This is no mass conspiracy.
I am not buying what they say hook-line-and-sinker, for I have access to the very same documents everybody else has, and can make from the amassed documents conclusions of my own if I suspect their reasons for the inclusion/omission of a word/verse(s) is faulty.
The variant manuscripts are detailed quite exactly on what their contents are, published in the NA27/UBS4 where variants exist, and are detailed quite extensively on what centuries they came from, and are told the very place you can go view them in a museum if you wish.
For you to say you know "for fact" anything is absurd. You show you only know and trust the comments of whatever you read in a book about various sources. I have access to the original sources myself, and am capable of determining on my own if I agree or disagree with the conclusions of other scholars.
I'm telling you, as a matter of fact, that what you are saying is entirely inaccurate. You are simply unable in anyway to produce even so much as a single epistle in any of the quotes from the first century church fathers. I know, for I have read the first century church fathers myself.
_________________
Jimmy H
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:33 | Profile |
| | Re: | | So you havent researched any of Dean Burgeon's work and looked at what he compiled. You cant go back and study the originals anymore than I can... you depend on other people's work just like I do. So we come back around to you know Greek and I dont, therefore I have no idea what I'm talking about and have no right to bring this topic up. Correct? Thats your "ace-in-the-hole".
(I know it sounds like I'm getting upset... I'm not. Just observing a Nicolation attitude.)
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/22 14:49 | | murdog
Member
Joined: 2006/2/4
Posts: 352
Fort Frances, Ontario
| | Re: | | Gentlemen,
"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." Luke 24:45
Murray
_________________
Murray Beninger
|
| | 2006/3/22 14:55 | Profile |
| | Re: | | I'm not sure I expressed myself in that post properly... I think it's more harsh than it needs to be. But there is this attitude coming thru loud and clear that if you don't have a PhD in Linguistics and Greek from a seminary somewhere, the who are you to question the modern versions. I have a Masters Degree in Structural Engineering, so I have known a lot of profs and scholars over the years... and some of them are the biggest idiots I've ever met. So I am not awe struck by titles, degrees and whatever else.
In fact, I recently fired an electrical engineer who is also a professor at UNC, and holds a PhD. He knew everything in theory, but when it came time to actually use it in the real world he was clueless... and cost me a lot of money.
Are they all like that? No, of course not. But I know more lay people with a better grip on scripture than I do "clergy" with high degrees from seminary.
Krispy |
| | 2006/3/22 15:19 | |
|
