SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : WHAT ABOUT THE HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Krispy, it is great to have you back!

I agree heartily with you that Gnosticism is -not- of God, is still around, and is becoming more popular - yet I am not aware of any (credible) link betweeen Gnosticism and the NA27/UBS4.

If the NA27/USB4 texts -are- inferior to the Textus Receptus, the arguments you are presenting in no way demonstrate it.

No verse in scripture tells us how God is going to preserve His word. Therefore I believe it wise to make no presumptions regarding which texts are being preserved - the TR or the NA27/USB4.

Perhaps I am alone in this, but I have yet to be edified by someone slinging mud at the bible.

The Textus Receptus is a good rendering of the six manuscripts it represents. The NA27/USB4 is a good rendering of the 5300+ manuscripts (including the six used by Erasmus to create the TR) it represents.

You may want to note, since you included the following in your post:

Quote:

1 John 5:7 -- The glorious Trinitarian confession is omitted, even though it has more manuscript and versional evidence than most of the Alexandrian readings preferred by modern textual critics.



That Erasmus originally followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood!” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles (recall that Erasmus, the original compiler of the TR, was both a 16th century humanist as well as a Catholic Priest). The uproar came about because The original TR did include “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.”

Erasmus explained why that was - because he could find no Greek MSS which had that reading! This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy manufactured just such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ -third- edition included the superfluous verse because now there was a Greek MS (‘made to order’ in this case) to fill his challenge!

To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have this rendering in 1 John 5:7-8, though --none-- of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

This is a matter of history and not debate.

Really, I guess I wonder why you bother attacking the translation, when in reality you have issue with the underlaying texts?

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/6/22 16:50Profile









 Re:

Quote:
No verse in scripture tells us how God is going to preserve His word. Therefore I believe it wise to make no presumptions regarding which texts are being preserved - the TR or the NA27/USB4.



No verse in the Bible explains to me how God created all the zillions of different plants in one day... yet I believe He did.

No verse in the Bible explains to me how God raised Lazarus from the dead... yet I believe He did.

God doesnt need to explain to us why or how... He just does. Who are we to say we need to know how? Are you relying on faith... or your own intellect?

Quote:
Perhaps I am alone in this, but I have yet to be edified by someone slinging mud at the bible.



I'm not slinging mud at anything... merely presenting the facts as I understand them to be. Also, I'm not arguing against the Bible... I'm arguing against a fake bible. The real Bible I dont have an issue with. :-)

Hey... I present what I understand about an issue... if you disagree, fine. You can disagree, and I am not offended. Nor am I always right about everything. Altho, on this topic I am quite confident that I am on solid ground.

Krispy

 2005/6/22 17:12
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
If you want some real textual scholars, try F.F. Bruce, Gordon Fee, Bruce Metzger and some others who actually are of great repute. They are extremely conservative and evangelical, and recognized highly by many.



Bruce Metzger..."extremely conservative"... :-P ha ha...that's a gas! You should be a comedian. Read this:

(One) "of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament is Bruce Manning Metzger (1914- ). Metzger is George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the American Bible Society. Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952. Today its chief editor sometimes is invited to speak at Evangelical forums. The RSV hasn’t changed, but Evangelicalism certainly has!

Metzger was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible and wrote the introductions to each book in this butchered version of the Scriptures. The Preface claims that "Dr. Metzger was actively involved at every stage of the work, from the initial studies on each of the sixty-six books through all the subsequent editorial reviews. The finished condensation has received his full approval." The Condensed Bible removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19! In the introductions to the books of the Reader’s Digest Bible, Metzger questions the authorship, traditional date, and supernatural inspiration of books penned by Moses, Daniel, and Peter, and in many other ways reveals his liberal, unbelieving heart. Consider some examples:

Genesis: "Nearly all modern scholars agree that, like the other books of the Pentateuch, [Genesis] is a composite of several sources, embodying traditions that go back in some cases to Moses."
Exodus: "As with Genesis, several strands of literary tradition, some very ancient, some as late as the sixth century B.C., were combined in the makeup of the books" (Introduction to Exodus).

Deuteronomy: "It’s compilation is generally assigned to the seventh century B.C., though it rests upon much older tradition, some of it from Moses’ time."

Daniel: "Most scholars hold that the book was compiled during the persecutions (168-165 B.C.) of the Jewish people by Antiochus Epiphanes."

John: "Whether the book was written directly by John, or indirectly (his teachings may have been edited by another), the church has accepted it as an authoritative supplement to the story of Jesus’ ministry given by the other evangelists."

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus: "Judging by differences in style and vocabulary from Paul’s other letters, many modern scholars think that the Pastorals were not written by Paul."

James: "Tradition ascribes the letter to James, the Lord’s brother, writing about A.D. 45, but modern opinion is uncertain, and differs widely on both origin and date."

2 Peter: "Because the author refers to the letters of Paul as ‘scripture,’ a term apparently not applied to them until long after Paul’s death, most modern scholars think that this letter was drawn up in Peter’s name sometime between A.D. 100 and 150."

Metzger’s modernism was also made plain in the notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (1973). Metzger co-edited this volume with Herbert May. It first appeared in 1962 as the Oxford Annotated Bible and was the first Protestant annotated edition of the Bible to be approved by a Roman authority. It was given an imprimatur in 1966 by Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts. Metzger wrote many of the rationalistic notes in this volume and put his editorial stamp of approval on the rest. Consider some excerpts from the notes:
INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT: "The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. ... The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there had appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land, an account which later in modified form became a part of Scripture. But it was to be a long time before the idea of Scripture arose and the Old Testament took its present form. ... The process by which the Jews became ‘the people of the Book’ was gradual, and the development is shrouded in the mists of history and tradition. ... The date of the final compilation of the Pentateuch or Law, which was the first corpus or larger body of literature that came to be regarded by the Jews as authoritative Scripture, is uncertain, although some have conservatively dated it at the time of the Exile in the sixth century. ... Before the adoption of the Pentateuch as the Law of Moses, there had been compiled and edited in the spirit and diction of the Deuteronomic ‘school’ the group of books consisting of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, in much their present form. ... Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time."
NOTES ON GENESIS: "[Genesis] 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6). Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13: ... the meaning of the third line [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure." [Editor: No, it is not obscure; it is a prophecy of Christ’s crucifixion!]

NOTES ON ISAIAH: "Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiah’s time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ... The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later."

NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT: "Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples. At first this information was circulated orally. As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter. This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke." [Editor: The Gospels, like every part of the New Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This nonsense of trying to find ‘the original source’ for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.]

NOTES ON 2 PETER: "The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ... Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master’s name early in the second century." [Editor: Those who believe this nonsense must think the early Christians were fools and the Holy Spirit was on a vacation.]

NOTES FROM "HOW TO READ THE BIBLE WITH UNDERSTANDING": "The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history ... These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical. ... it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved ... When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements. ... We should always remember the variety of literary forms found in the Bible, and should read a passage in the light of its own particular literary character. Legend should be read as legend, and poetry as poetry, and not with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind."

This is the same type of rationalistic wickedness that appears in Metzger’s notes in the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible. This modernistic foolishness, of course, is a lie. The Pentateuch was written by the hand of God and Moses and completed during the 40 years of wilderness wandering hundreds of years before Samuel and the kings. The Old Testament did not arise gradually from a matrix of myth and history, but is inspired revelation delivered to holy men of old by Almighty God. The Jews were a "people of the book" from the beginning. The Jewish nation did not form the Bible; the Bible formed the Jewish nation! In Metzger’s "Introduction to the New Testament" in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, he completely ignores the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and claims that the Gospels are composed of material gathered from oral tradition. The Bible says nothing about this, but Jesus Christ plainly tells us that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:7-15). The Gospels are the product of divine revelation, not some happenstance editing of oral tradition.
Bruce Metzger is a Liberal. He piously claims on one hand that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; but out of the other side of the mouth he claims the Bible is filled with myth and lies. He denies the Bible’s history, its miracles, and its authorship, while, in true liberal style, declaring that this denial does not do injustice to the Word of God, for the Bible is not "written for history but for religion" and is not to be read "with a dull prosaic and literalistic mind"!

Metzger has been called an Evangelical by some who should know better, but upon the authority of the man’s own writings, I declare that Bruce Metzger is an unbeliever. He is a false teacher. He is apostate. He is a heretic. Those are all Bible terms. Having studied many of the man’s works, I am convinced those are the terms which must be applied to him. One Baptist writer partially defended Metzger to me with these words—"he did write a superb pamphlet in 1953 refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses and defending the full and absolute deity of Christ." Even the Pope of Rome defends the full and absolute deity of Christ. A man can defend the deity of Christ and still be a false teacher. A man who denies the written Word also denies the Living Word. They stand or fall together. If the Bible contains error, Christ was a liar. If Christ is perfect Truth, so is the Bible.

In The New Testament, Its Background, Growth, and Content, which appeared in 1965, Metzger claims that "the discipline of form criticism has enlarged our understanding of the conditions which prevailed during the years when the gospel materials circulated by word of mouth" (p. 86). Not so. Form criticism is that unbelieving discipline which claims that the Gospels were gradually formed out a matrix of tradition and myth. Form critics hold a wide variety of views (reflecting the unsettled and relativistic nature of the rationalism upon which they stand), but all of them deny that the Gospels are the perfect, verbally inspired, divinely-given, absolutely infallible Word of God. Metzger says, "What each evangelist has preserved, therefore, is not a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus, but an interpretative portrait delineated in accord with the special needs of the early church" (Ibid.). Metzger is wrong. The Gospel writers have indeed given us, by divine revelation, a photographic reproduction of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. Praise God for it!"

RT

 2005/6/22 17:21Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

That doesnt really even make sense, and I have not read where any reputable scholars OR theologians have ever subscribed to that theory.



This was one of the first ideas I learned in Bible school, and it actually makes a ton of sense. If you've not come across this idea after several years of study, I fear you are hardly scracthing the surface. What is hard to understand about later revisions and editions by the author being inspired? I suggest you go read. Try the Intro to Pentateuch by Herbert Wolf on for size.

The OT is especially full of these revisions, especially the Pentateuch and Historical Books, as sometimes cities and locations were updated by later ancient scribes to make the locations more understandable. This comes across even in our English editions! For example, a lot of what you see in the OT that is in parantheseses is actually such. For example, 1 Sam 9:9 is a great example of a later inspired scribe making a comment to help clarify something to his reader.

Quote:

Really? These guys are all modernists. Bruce Metzger especially. He denies large portions of the Bible. Do you realize he wrote an autobiography and not once ever mentions any kind of a salvation experience? How is that possible? If he is saved... how is that not the cornerstone and turning point of his life... important enough to be mentioned in his autobiography?



Just because they are modern doesn't mean they aren't conservative and evangelical. Just because they are modern in scholarship doesn't mean they are automatically therefore wrong either.

F.F. Bruce was very much Plmyouth Brethren, Fee is very much Pentecostal (Assemblies of God ordained in fact, pastored for a short while as well). I will have to retract on Metzger, as I don't actually know his Christian background. I think I heard he is more mainline, but I cannot be for sure. However, he is conservative, and has written extensively on the reliability of Scripture and even of its preservation. I know he was a guest lecturer once at the Church of God Theological Seminary, which is Pentecostal, and very conservative in scholarship.

Please, go read some more before you come out with an all out assault on a translation... one since it is so new I take you have not even read. Have you read it? Have you not only read it, but studied it? Or, did you simply hear it was based on an ancient text you don't really care for, thus, you decided to attack it and denounce it? Such is what makes your comments inflamatory if so.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2005/6/22 17:26Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
No verse in scripture tells us how God is going to preserve His word.



How? Maybe not. I'll have to look again. But for sure Ps. 12:6,7 tell us that it will be preserved and kept in every generation. Your critical text doesn't fit this description.

Besides, if you include the 45 Alexandrian MSS that differ with the rest and each other so often, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE PURE WORDS OF GOD??? The answer is, you will have to pick and choose and guess like the rest of the so-called scholars like Metzger. Well you can put up with his doubt, but not me.

Quote:
Perhaps I am alone in this, but I have yet to be edified by someone slinging mud at the bible.



No, I think you have quite a large company who will join you there. I doubt anyone here wants mud slung at God's word.

[u][b]But will we ever find a bunch who will defend it, contend for it, and stand squarely upon it? That is the question.[/b][/u]

Quote:
The NA27/USB4 is a good rendering of the 5300+ manuscripts (including the six used by Erasmus to create the TR) it represents.



This is false. If your beloved NA27/USB4 would have gone with the majority of those 5,300 MSS, you would have a King James Bible. But since they extracted 45 corrupt ones for their base and made reference to the rest, they ended up with what they have.

It's a shame you would make such a deceptive misrepresentation of the facts.

Quote:
Erasmus explained why that was - because he could find no Greek MSS which had that reading!



It is amazing how you take a few sentences to describe books worth of information and history about something so controversial. If you are a Greek only guy, you can do that. I prefer being an Acts 2 person. Vernacular Bibles are essential for translation. Old Latin is one of them.

BTW, the Greek grammar doesn't fit the omition of the Johannine comma.

Quote:
Really, I guess I wonder why you bother attacking the translation, when in reality you have issue with the underlaying texts?



Because the translation ALWAYS represents the underlying texts. Go look up the word "translation" and you won't ask such silly questions.

RT

 2005/6/22 17:36Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Are you relying on faith... or your own intellect?



I, like all born again believers, do not rely on my faith or my intellect - but instead I rely solely on Jesus Christ, my God, my King, and my Savior. :-)

When I remarked that no verse in scripture teaches how God preserves His word, I wasn't suggesting that we need to know how God preserves his word. I was saying that because we do not know, saying one text is the bible, and the other a fake might be a little presumptuous on our part - no matter how convinced we happened to be.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/6/22 18:03Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
I was saying that because we do not know, saying one text is the bible, and the other a fake might be a little presumptuous on our part - no matter how convinced we happened to be.



Well, one thing is for sure. The two text streams are SO different that if we CAN'T know then we have no sure foundation to stand on.

By your own admission there COULD be an innerrant Bible, but you wouldn't know how to find it. And if you did find it, you definitely wouldn't say so with faith and assurance.

You are a Bible agnostic by your own admission. Pity.

RT

 2005/6/22 18:09Profile
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 649
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

As I remarked in an earlier post, why have hamburger(NIV) when you can have steak(KJV)? I personally don't trust any Bible version that was translated by occultists(Westcott and Hort) and lesbian goddess worshipers(Virginia Mollenkott).


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2005/6/22 18:17Profile
drifter
Member



Joined: 2005/6/6
Posts: 649
Campbell River, B.C.

 Re:

Also, instead of relying on our own wisdom, why not ask the Lord which version is the best?(Or which version we personally should use?) He can't have two opinions.


_________________
Nigel Holland

 2005/6/22 18:21Profile
dann
Member



Joined: 2005/2/16
Posts: 239
Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada

 Re:

Thank you for your opinions brother Received Text.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/6/22 18:29Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy