SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Which Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Oh boy... buckle yer seatbelts, y'all! LOL


well, do you?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/15 14:22Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Oh boy... buckle yer seatbelts, y'all! LOL



No, its strap on your helmet. :-)


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/2/15 14:25Profile









 Re:

Quote:
well, do you?



Dont aim that cannon at me! I wasnt the one who posted that quote by Sam Gripp...!

Krispy

 2005/2/15 14:53
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

I'm getting a reputation here that I don't really relish! :-? I am not trying to win anything, and not trying to demolish anyone's trust in the KJV. But when folk say 'this is so and so...' I shall ask awkward questions, like 'who says so?'

In the early days of my membership of SI I had one poster who wanted to correct the Greek by reference to the KJV. Old sayings about 'carts and horses' and their relative order came to mind!

Why are we so afraid of other versions? We don't need to hide our heads in the sand, there are perfectly reasonable reasons as to why we should believe in the primacy of the Byzantine Textform. My concern is that we so quickly adopt a siege mentality of 'I've made my mind up, please don't confuse me with the facts!' 8-)


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/15 15:27Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I'm getting a reputation here that I don't really relish! I am not trying to win anything, and not trying to demolish anyone's trust in the KJV. But when folk say 'this is so and so...' I shall ask awkward questions, like 'who says so?'



Not at all, brother! You challenge me, and in our discussions about this topic you've helped me realize that I'm a little weak in my knowledge of the Byzantine Textform.

Actually, instead of you asking us if we know the difference... why not educate us?

I'll be right back w/my popcorn... then you can start.

Krispy

 2005/2/15 15:42
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Actually, instead of you asking us if we know the difference... why not educate us?


You're going to need a big bag of popcorn!

Let's keep it as simple as possible. I will leave out the Western and Alexandrian textforms altogether. I regard them as less reliable; this is my own personal judgment on the evidence of expert witnesses.

Old Erasmus created a Greek Text. This is important to understand. He did not find a perfect version of anything; he used approx 6 old manuscripts and collated the information he found there. Where they differed he made judgments about which he felt represented best the autographs (original writings of Paul etc). An earlier scholar Ximenes had done a much more thorough work but Erasmus beat him to the press. Later another Greek scholar assembled another Greek text, building on the work of Erasmus; his name was Stephens or Stephanos and his Greek Text was published in 1550. Later another Greek scholar assembled another Greek Text building on the work of Erasmus and Stephanos; this was Elzevir and it was published in 1624. The texts of Stephanos and Elzevir are very similar, but it is Elzevir’s text which brought in the phrase ‘Textus Receptus’ or Received Text. This work was still based on a very small number of manuscripts.

Although these Greek Text editions were based on a small number of actual manuscripts the family of manuscripts which they came from was much larger. This larger family of manuscripts is known as the Byzantine Textform or the Majority Text. It is important to understand that the Majority Text is the Byzantine Textform and NOT the Received Text. The Received Text is a small sample of manuscripts which belong to the Byzantine Textform.

Maurice Robinson writes:

1. From the beginning of the modern critical era in the nineteenth century the Byzantine Textform has had a questionable reputation. Associated as it was with the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text "late and secondary," due both to the relative age of the extant witnesses which provide the majority of its known support and to the internal quality of its readings as subjectively perceived. Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032.

2. Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner. Rather, the Byzantine Textform is the form of text which is known to have predominated in the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century. The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission. Various attempts have been made in this direction, postulating either the "AD 350 Byzantine recension" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort, or the current "process" view promulgated by modern schools of eclectic methodology. Yet neither of these explanations sufficiently accounts for the phenomenon, as even some of their own prophets have declared.

Have a read through the above, trying not to get too much popcorn on it, and let me know if there are parts that need more explanation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/2/15 17:59Profile









 Re:

Thats a good foundation for me to study this issue... thank you.

Sorry about the butter on your post... I like the "movie theater" popcorn, ya know.

Krispy

 2005/2/16 8:19
UncleAlDude
Member



Joined: 2004/10/14
Posts: 5


 Re:

I would like to humbly submit my own 2 cents if I may. I am not an avid KJV fan. I enjoy it for its historicity, but am partial to the NASB. A far (and I do mean FAR) more learned man than I has recommended it and, even in comparison to the KJV, cannot fault the soundness of his doctrine. I am by no means a linguist. I love the intricacies of language, but have not studied them in depth.
Having said that, I find that we must be careful when referencing the works of other men in support of positions, even the early church fathers. Many of them introduced and espoused heresies which exist in some form even today. Irenaeus promoted the fallacy that Peter was influential in founding the church in Rome when there is no record that Peter ever went to Rome. He also wrote that all churches should agree with the church in Rome in all things. Tertullian was a staunch supporter of infant baptism. There are other examples that show that within the first few hundred years of the church doctrine had been corrupted, but what is even more troubling is that it is found within the first generation church. Aside from tradition, what do we know of the early apostles? What do the Scriptures tell us of Thaddeus and Thoams and Bartholomew and Simon the Zealot and Matthias and James bar Alpheus (forgive the Jewish rendering) and Philip (the apostle, not the deacon) and Andrew after the day of Pentecost? We know that the James referred to in the book of Acts and who was the leader in the church in Jerusalem was the brother of Jesus and not one of the original twelve. What we know of them, primarily, is that, in opposition to the command of Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8), they remained in Jerusalem, even when persecution scattered everyone else (Acts 8:1). Paul even mentions in his letter to the Colossians that only 4 "of the circumcision" -- Jewish -- were fellow workers with him for the Kingdom of God. What of those who saw Jesus face to face? The KJV is a much-venerated translation, but is not without its difficulties, as has already been noted. Any translation must be read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit because, while God's Word is not subject to fallacy, each translation, transliteration or paraphrase is subjected to the personality or agenda (as in the case of King James -- who authorized a translation in 1603, not 1611. It was completed in 1611) of the one producing it.
I must also say I was pleased to read through this entire thread and find civility reigning. We can feel strongly about our positions, but never can we afford to degenerate to incivility. That's just not appropriate for servants of the King.
Yours Humbly,
Alan


_________________
Alan Arnott

 2005/3/8 23:18Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I find that we must be careful when referencing the works of other men in support of positions, even the early church fathers. Many of them introduced and espoused heresies which exist in some form even today.



Absolutely... and I dont think you'v heard us quote from those who spread the gnostic thoughts, etc.

S. Franklin Logsdon (1907-1987) was one of the men who helped put together the NASB. Are you aware that before he died he denounced the NASB?

Here are his own words:

[i]I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them...When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not quite right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV... The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?...I don't want anything to do with it...The finest leaders that we have today...haven't gone into it (the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text), just as I hadn't gone into it...That's how easily one can be deceived...I'm going to talk to him (Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute) about these things...You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct!...If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Dr. Frank Logsdon[/i]

Krispy

 2005/3/9 12:03





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy