SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Textual Criticism

Print Thread (PDF)

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



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3776


 Re: Check me out, please.

You folk on this thread are all a lot more advanced then me - regarding literary skills. It seems that the "prechewed" NIV worked for me. That is what the Spirit used to get passed the false understanding of many spiritual concepts - what I accumulated when I was leaning on my own understanding. Through the NIV I met the Lord and learned his truths in ways that I had never known all those years that I thought I was a born again Christian but wasn't. I must admit that I had been reading the NIV for years and learned a lot, but it wasn't till the Spirit filled me, gave me sight, and gave me new life in Christ that the Scripture came alive like never before. Funny that God didn't ask me to change translations even though he called me to make many other changes. The Spirit often directed me to precise verses - the exact ones I needed for whatever he was teaching me at the time. I put the dates beside the verses that he directed me to.

I have put some of the things I learned on my site. I realize it is a work in progress and far from ideal. However, I wouldn't mind if any of you felt inspired to check me out, and correct weak arguments. Seriously, I know that no one has the line on the truth, and I could easily be wrong in various areas. I would love to know if the NIV got me off track in any area of my spiriutal understanding and walk.
I have no partiality to the NIV or any one translation. I like the way the NLT explains various verses. Generally speaking, I find that while I read the KJV I do a lot of in-my-head interpreting, and I could easily be wrong doing that. KJV is just not my language.

It's great that I can easily check out various translations of passages on the web. That is a special privelege few of human civilization has ever had.
Diane


_________________
Diane

 2005/7/2 18:57Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
But we do have very reliable reports of translations such as the Old Latin and the Peshitta dating back to apostolic times as well, which cause us to wonder how many languages the apostles translated the Bible into.


Neither the Old Latin nor the Peshitta date back to apostolic times.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/7/6 6:54Profile









 Re:

Received Text all the way baby... I like the Tyndale NT at times, but the KJV is the masterpiece. (80% of the KJV NT is based on Tyndale's work)

Perhaps a better way to discuss this is to discuss the Doctrine of Preservasion. That is at the heart of the whole issue anyway... those who hold to the modern versions must deny this doctrine.

Personally... I believe God kept His promise to preserve His Word (without corruption) for every generation.

But who am I? I'm just operating on faith. Silly me. ;-)

Krispy

 2005/7/6 8:41
dann
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:... those who hold to the modern versions must deny this doctrine (preservation).



I respect the NA27/UBS4 compendium, but that respect is not transmitted to the myriad of "modern versions" translated from it. of the 130+ English translations farmed out of the NA27/UBS4 - I personally find only one authoritative (the NASB). I do have an ESV, which I use to compare - but it takes a back seat to the NASB.

I make the distinction because you have lumped all modern versions together as though they were equal translations - an over-simplification that must be regarded as such in order for my reply to make sense.

While I respect the NA27/UBS4, that in no way implies that I do not believe that God has preserved his word.

Your definition of what "preservation" looks rests itself upon a ideal that isn't warranted or necessary - that is, your position is that God preserved one flavor of manuscript - and this preserved singular is to be preferred.

Such reasonsing as this, if imposed upon the New Testament would demand that God could only preserve one version of the gospel, and that (necessarily) the other three gospels were "corrupt" etc. We know that this is folly and small minded, and we all dismiss it as soon as we hear it because it is obviously poor reasoning.

In the same way, I can dismiss your reasoning with regards to preservation. You imagine that God preserves only one text - and that all others are corrupt. I on the other hand, believe that God has preserved all the manuscripts - and that like the gospels, when combined they produce one clear picture - preserved perfectly by God.

To suggest therefore that one must abandon the notion that God has preserved his word just because one has a respect for the critical text is therefore not accurate.

I certainly believe that God preserves his word - I just don't accept your own definition of what that looks like.

Dan
/\/
\/\


_________________
Daniel van de Laar

 2005/7/6 11:35Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

What Dann is saying on this topic is making a whole lot of sense to me. Moreover we cannot argue on the one hand apologetically that the abundance of manuscripts gives great weight to the authenticity of the New Testament while simultaneously asserting that many or most of them are "spawned of the devil" or any such thing. We have to be consistent in our arguments across the entire apologetics spectrum.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/6 11:43Profile









 Re:

Quote:
We know that this is folly and small minded, and we all dismiss it as soon as we hear it because it is obviously poor reasoning.



Well... aint you just the smart one.

Pride cometh before the fall, my friend. And that has to be the most pride-filled responses I've ever read on here. If I responded to someone in that way people would find a tall tree and a short piece of rope and let me swing in the wind.

But since it's you... nothing will be said.

I wont argue this point with someone who views himself as being all knowing and intellectual. There is no point.

Krispy

 2005/7/6 12:23
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

dann wrote:
...God has preserved all the manuscripts - and that like the gospels, when combined they produce one clear picture - preserved perfectly by God.

From a bible origins babe, that sounded very good. :smart:


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/7/6 12:31Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Pride cometh before the fall, my friend. And that has to be the most pride-filled responses I've ever read on here. If I responded to someone in that way people would find a tall tree and a short piece of rope and let me swing in the wind.

But since it's you... nothing will be said.

I wont argue this point with someone who views himself as being all knowing and intellectual. There is no point



Would it not be poor reasoning to assert that one of the Gospel's is sufficient record of the life of Christ and His teachings when God has clearly given us 4 of them? I actually dealt with this a while back and there are those who assert that the Gospel of Mark is all we need. It is way off base to suggest that we ought to disregard ANY of the Gospels- even if one of them contains information that destroys our pet-doctrines. There must be a willingness to accept the truth no matter what that truth is.

Which leads me to wonder why such a view of 'limited light' would be held unless there is some doctrine or teaching to be protected that falls apart in view of all the resources. I'm a KJV guy myself through and through- but I am not KJV [u]only[/u]. One of my most recent concerns with the KJV is its translation of words that tend to allow for Romanism's church government to form in the minds of the readers.

Quote:
If I responded to someone in that way people would find a tall tree and a short piece of rope and let me swing in the wind.

But since it's you... nothing will be said.




Come on now Krispy, this thread started out as a response to a challenge from you on another thread. Lets look at some quotes from the original post:

Quote:
It is a more literal translation of the same corrupted Greek text that the NIV and the other modern versions are based on. The Old Testament is a translation of an inferior Hebrew Text.

I would recommend you avoid this "bible" as much as I would the NIV "bible".

No doubt I'mm get hammered on this thread, but watch... [u]not one person will come to the defense of the Alexandrian text[/u]... or explain why they reject the Received Text (which the KJV is based on). I'll just be called mean spirited, divisive, etc etc. [u]But in all my time on this site not one supporter of the modern versions has ever tried to offer any argument for the Alexandrian Text.[/u]

And yes... thats a friendly challenge. [u]Anyone wanna step up to the plate and show us why the stream of Greek texts that underly the modern versions is superior?[/u]

By the way, this is a friendly challenge for a friendly debate. [u]Any and all overly emotional hot-heads will be ignored. (You know who you are)[/u]



You received your challenge and I would hold your feet to the fire and say offer up a rebuttal to his points. We will listen and no one will get a rope or the like.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/7/6 13:08Profile









 Re:

Hey Bob...

Big difference between issueing a challenge... a [b]friendly[/b] challenge... and calling people who disagree with your opinions "small minded", and "folly". I dont find it necessary to name call and insult people when debating. Offend some with my opinions? Yes... but not degrade.

You should know that... but apparently it's a hard distinction to make for some.

Krispy

 2005/7/6 13:11
ZekeO
Member



Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 Re:

Quote:

RobertW wrote:
...no one will get a rope or the like.

I might. :-P

On second thoughts, how do I get my hands on the little Kritter? :-D


_________________
Zeke Oosthuis

 2005/7/6 14:09Profile





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