SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : What Does Your's Say?

Print Thread (PDF)

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









 Re: What does yours say?

This is the final comparison between the two basic texts that make up the New Testament in our Bible of today.

There are two texts 1)-the Majority text, that inspired the Protestant reformation and the building of the Christian Church, as we knew it before 1900. 2) The Minority text, that inspired the Catholic Church, and is still in use to this day. The Minority text is also behind all of the newer versions of the Protestant Bible, that have been produced since 1881.

[b]Grab your "favorite" version and let’s continue.Is there really a difference? You be the one to decide:[/b]

[b]1 PETER [/b]

1:22[b] "through the Spirit" is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000] The Bible teaches that it is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that men are brought to believe in Christ. In John 16:8,9 he convicts the world (all men) and draws them to faith in Christ. [/color][/b]

1:23 [b]"for ever" is dropped and thereby the preservation of the Word of God is called into question.[/b] [b][color=990000] The agency here of the new birth is the Word of God, which is eternal. Our new birth therefore is as eternal as the Word which originated it. [/color][/b]

2:2[b]The phrase "unto salvation" is added by Westcott and Hort (1881) to "that ye may grow thereby." [/b] [b][color=990000]This puts a question mark over the certainty of our present salvation. It makes salvation a process rather than an accomplished fact. The doctrine of eternal security is denied by the new exhortation to grow UNTO SALVATION. [/color][/b]

3:18 [b]"suffered for sins" is changed to "died for sins." [/b] [b][color=990000]The context has Christians suffering for well doing and they are exhorted to keep on because Christ also has suffered for us. It is a Bible teaching that Christ not only died for our sins, but that he suffered for our sins (see Isaiah 53:5-7). [/color][/b]

3:18 [b] The correct rendering attributes the resurrection of Christ to the Holy Spirit.[/b] [b][color=990000]This completes the truth that all three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection of Christ (see John 2:19; Rom. 8:11). [/color][/b]

4:1 [b]"for us" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] Christ suffered for us, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.[/color][/b]

5:2 [b] "taking the oversight thereof" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000]To watch over the flock of God with authority is a clear teaching of the Word. [/color][/b]

5:12[b] "wherein ye stand" is changed to "wherein stand."[/b] [b][color=990000] By the removal of the word "ye" there is a change from our standing in grace to an exhortation to stay there standing. The blessing of a perfected standing in grace is thereby removed. [/color][/b]

[b]2 PETER[/b]
2:17 [b]The words "for ever" are dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000]Peter, in the word concerning false teachers, states that their darkness is to last forever. The change leaves us with no definite word as to their end. [/color][/b]

2:18 [b]"those that were clean escaped" is changed to "those that are scarcely escaping." [/b] [b][color=990000]The change from past tense to present tense moves us from a completed salvation to a hope-so salvation. Those who are saved are in possession of eternal life (see John 5:24). [/color][/b]

2:20 [b]"the Lord and Saviour" becomes "our Lord and Saviour." [/b] [b][color=990000]The false teachers had escaped some of the world's worst sins by following the teachings of "the Lord" but they had never come to know him as "our Lord" is known to real Christians. They were not saved and then lost, but never saved at all. [/color][/b]

3:2[b] "us the apostles" is changed to "your apostles." [/b] [b][color=990000]The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) and there are no apostles and prophets today nor is there any such thing as an apostolic succession. The phrase "your apostles" indicates that the people he was writing to had special apostles designated for them and lends support to the continuance of a so-called "Apostolic Succession." [/color][/b]

[b]1 JOHN [/b]

1:7 [b]"Christ" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000]This word brings the cleansing blood into relationship with our great anointed High Priest who ever liveth to make intercession for us. Many cults believe that Jesus (as man) died for the original sin of Adam and that Christ (as a spirit) rose without the body. John would have us know that the one who died and the one who arose are the same. [/color][/b]

3:5 [b] "our" is removed from before "sins." [/b] [b][color=990000]Once again the question of whose sins were taken away is raised. There have been sins committed by angels and men. The "our sins" refers the atonement to those of men. (see my comments under Hebrews 1;3). [/color][/b]

3:14 [b]"his brother" is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000] The teaching of the Word is that a true Christian will love his brother in Christ. If a man does not love a true Christian, then it is evident that he is still lost and abides in death. The test of spiritual life is not that we love, but that we love the brethren (see John 13:34,35). [/color][/b]

4:19[b] "We love him" is changed to "We love."[/b] [b][color=990000] The object of God's love is us, and the object of our love is him. Christians are not just people who love, but people who love God because of his grace. The very next verse deals with the professor who says he loves God but is a liar. Lost people may love, but saved people love God. [/color][/b]

5:7 [b][color=990000]The whole verse bearing testimony to the Triune God is discarded. There are at least 20 Greek manuscripts which have this verse in. It is also seen in the writings of the church fathers and lectionaries. It directly affects the Bible doctrine of the Trinity. [/color][/b]

[b]REVELATION[/b]
5:10[b] "kings and priests" is changed to "a kingdom of priests." [/b] [b][color=990000]The 24 elders are representative of all the redeemed who in Christ are constituted kings and priests. A kingdom of priests smells of Nicolaitanism (the rule of the clergy over the laity) and the priesthood for a select few as in the Roman Catholic Church. (The same change is seen in 1:6) [/color][/b]

8:13[b] "an angel" is changed to "an eagle." [/b] [b][color=990000]This is most amusing and shows how captive the Revisers are to their corrupt text. In a setting replete with angels we are told about a talking eagle who pronounces three more "Woes" to the inhabiters of the earth. [/color][/b]

14:5[b]"before the throne of God" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000]This phrase speaks of the perfect standing that the saved have in Christ. They are without fault before God because they are, like the church, "accepted in the beloved" (Eph. 1:6). [/color][/b]

20:9 [b]"from God" is dropped.[/b] [b][color=990000] At the end of the Kingdom Age the enemies of God are destroyed by fire "from God out of heaven." God is the one who will destroy all enemies and create a new heaven and a new earth. [/color][/b]

20:12 [b]"before God" is changed to "before the throne."[/b] [b][color=990000] The dead will be raised, not to stand before an impersonal throne, but to stand before "the God" [literal]. Many would like to change the personal God into some kind of Divine Mind or Supreme Being. [/color][/b]

[i][b][color=0000FF]Have you been able to see the difference between the two types of text- the Majority text and the Minority text? I pray that this comparision has opened eyes and hearts.
[/color][/b][/i]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/4/27 12:42









 Re: What does yours say?

[b]The Gospels are also affected by the Minority text.

Please compare the following to the Bible of your choice, and decide. Are you using the Minority or the Majority text? What text (Majority as presented by the King James or the Minority as presented by the Catholic Bible and all of the newer Protestant Bible versions created since 1881-NIV, NASB, ETC.) provides the best understanding about Bible Doctrine?[/b]

[b]MATTHEW [/b]

[b]1:25 "her firstborn" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000]That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. [/color][/b]

[b]5:22 "without a cause" is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000]In the Sermon on the Mount the Lord warned of judgment for those who were angry with a brother without a cause. Should this change be accepted everyone who is angry with his brother may be judged. The effect is to bring Jesus into judgment for failing to observe his own words (see Mark 3:5). Such is contrary to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ. [/color][/b]

[b]6:4, 6, 18 "openly" is out.[/b] [b][color=990000]It is a Bible Doctrine that Christian work done unnoticed for the glory of the Lord will one day be rewarded openly (Col. 3:4). [/color][/b]

[b]6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen" is deleted. [/b][b][color=990000]This ascription of praise to "Our Father" is found in 491 out of 500 existing manuscripts. This statement was made a century ago by Dean John Burgon.
[/color][/b]
[b]8:29 "Jesus" is left out.[/b] The demons bore witness to the fact that Jesus was the Son of God.[b][color=990000] It was an identification of Jesus (in humanity) as the Son of God (in Deity). It affects the doctrine of the Person of Christ. [/color][/b]

[b]9:8 "marvelled" is changed to "were afraid." [/b] [b][color=990000]There is no reason to believe that the people were afraid because Jesus healed the sick of the palsy. There is every reason for them to marvel at the miracle.[/color][/b]

[b]9:13 "to repentance" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] The Bible doctrine of repentance is one that men would like to do away with. God requires that in order to be saved one must truly repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9). The word means "a change of mind" and there must be that concerning God, sin and salvation. Men think that sin does not really separate them from God--they must change their mind about that. Men think that salvation is by works--they must change their mind about that. There is nothing more evident today than the absence of repentance among those who are professing to be converted. [/color][/b]

[b]15:8 "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" is left out. According to Isaiah 29:13 it belongs in because Isaiah prophesied of these hypocrites exactly that way.[/b]

[b]16:2,3 "When it is evening ... the signs of the times" is all omitted.[/b][b][color=990000] The Pharisees and Sadducees came looking for a sign and the signs were all around them. Jesus called them hypocrites because they could not tell the signs of the times. [/color][/b]

[b]17:21 Whole verse is left out. Power with God is to be had by prayer and fasting. That is a fundamental truth of the Word of God. [/b]

[b]18:2 "Jesus" is left out.[/b] This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I have not chosen to remark about each instance because it would add many pages to this work. The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command.[b][color=990000] It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he." [/color][/b]

[b]18:11 The whole verse is omitted. This verse tells us that man is lost, that he needs to be saved, and that the Son of man is the one who can do that. The doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ is affected by this change.[/b]

[b]18:15 "against thee" is omitted. [/b][b][color=990000]This omission sets us up as watchdogs over others and if one sins we are to go and tell him. Such is not the teaching of Scripture. Were we to declare every sin we would be constantly busy (bodies) judging the actions and motives of everyone. This change is a very bad error. [/color][/b]

[b]18:35 "their trespasses" is omitted. Same thought as mentioned in 18:15.[/b]

[b]19:9 "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000] This is a very important doctrinal change which concerns divorce and remarriage. A man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and also the man who marries the divorced wife commits adultery.[/color][/b]

[b]19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?"[/b][b][color=990000] Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ. [/color][/b]

[b]20:16 "for many be called, but few chosen" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] The Lord would have us know that many are called to inherit eternal life, but few are chosen by virtue of believing in Christ. It is a Bible doctrine that God wants all men to be saved but few will come to Christ for salvation.[/color][/b]

[b]21:12 "of God" is out.[/b] [b][color=990000] Jesus, who was God in the flesh, came to his own temple and said, "My house shall be called the house of prayer." It was the temple of God and the God of the temple was there. [/color][/b]

[b]22:30 "of God" is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000] There are good angels and fallen angels. The believers, in the resurrection, will be like the good angels "of God" who alone are in heaven.[/color][/b]

[b]23:8 "Master" is changed to "teacher." [/b][b][color=990000]There are many teachers but only one master. The change here takes away the pre- eminence that God intends for his Son.[/color][/b]

[b]25:13 "wherein the Son of man cometh" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] The warning to watch is tied to the imminent return of the Lord. The omission here does away with the doctrine of the Lord's second advent. [/color][/b]

[b]26:28 "new" is dropped before testament.[/b] [b][color=990000] The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus said, "this cup is the NEW testament in my blood." The change here is intended to corrupt the Word of God and to confuse Christians. [/color][/b]

[b]27:35 "that it might be fulfilled ... did they cast lots" is all omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] It is very important in Matthew's gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as the King of Israel, to show that he is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Here the parting of his garments and casting lots is the fulfillment of Psalm 22:18 which portrays the crucifixion of Christ. To omit this is to show the intended corruption of the Word of God by the textual critics.[/color][/b]

[b]28:6 "the Lord" is omitted.[/b][b][color=990000] The very reverent angels said, "see the place where the Lord lay." They would not say, "see the place where he lay." The constant attempt to humanize Jesus and take away from his Deity does not endear the Westcott and Hort Greek Text to believers[/color][/b]


Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/4/27 23:33









 Re:What does yours say?

[b][color=990000]Their are two basic texts that make up our Bibles of today:

There is a great deal of difference between these two texts-- Majority text, and the Minority text, between the King James Version (Majority text), and the Catholic Bible (Douay-Rheims & New Jerusalem-the Minority text) and all of the newer versions of the Protestant Bible created since 1881. The Majority Text inspired the Protestant Bible, that inspired the Protestant Reformation and the building of the Christian Church, as we knew it before 1900. The finest version of the Majority Text is the 1611 King James Bible. The Minority Text, that inspired the Catholic Church, and is the text used to create the Catholic Bible (Douay-Rheims & New Jerusalem) is also the text used to create all of the newer versions of the Protestant Bible, that have been produced since 1881. [/color][/b]


[b]Grab your "favorite" version (NIV, NASV, Etc.) and let’s continue our comparison through the Gospels. Is there really a difference? You be the one to decide:[/b]


[b]MARK [/b]

[b]1:1 "the Son of God" is left out. [/b][b][color=990000]These words present Jesus Christ as Deity. Such an omission is a direct attack on the person of Christ and is without doubt a doctrinal error. [/color][/b]

[b]1:31 "immediately" is dropped.[/b] [b][color=990000] The descriptive word tells us when the fever left her and therefore provides us with a miracle. The word left out denies the miracle and thus the one who performed it. [/color][/b]

[b]2:17 "to repentance" is left out. [/b] [b][color=990000] See comments on Matt. 9:13. (previous posting) [/color][/b]

[b]3:15 "to heal sicknesses" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] Jesus gave them authority to heal diseases as well as to cast out demons. Sickness is the result of sin (Adam's) and the only one who has authority to eliminate it is the one who would die for sin. On the basis of his approaching death for sin on Calvary he could say, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee" and "Rise up and walk." [/color][/b]

[b]4:24 "and unto you that hear shall more be given" is left out. [/b] [b][color=990000] It is a Bible teaching (DOCTRINE) that those who seek truth from the Lord shall be given more truth (see John 7:17). [/color][/b]

[b][color=990000] 5:36 "as soon" is dropped. The word in the Greek is "immediately." The word "immediately" is constantly dropped by the Revisers of 1881. It is a key word in Mark which is the Gospel of the Servant of the Lord who came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister." When Jairus was told that his daughter was dead and that he should not trouble Jesus further, the Lord "immediately" encouraged him to believe. [/color][/b]

[b]6:11 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" is removed from the text.[/b] [b][color=990000] This passage emphasizes the great degree of responsibility that was upon those cities who heard the Lord's apostles as they preached repentance and worked miracles before them. Sodom and Gomorrah did not have such light, yet they are still suffering the eternal wrath of God (see Jude 7 where "suffering" is in the present tense). How much more the judgment of America today where people sit in an abundance of complete revelation from God and choose to remain in darkness. [/color][/b]

[b]7:8 "as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do" is omitted. [/b] [b][color=990000] The Lord not only condemns the Pharisees for traditions of men, but he names them. There are traditions of men today which are sending people to Hell and preachers need to name them. It is doctrinally unsound to let men go on in traditions and not expose them. [/color][/b]

[b]9:23 "if thou canst believe" is dropped.[/b] [b][color=990000] The father had said to Jesus, "if thou canst do anything." To this lack of faith Jesus answered, "if thou canst believe." It was at once a rebuke and an encouragement to have faith in him. The father's answer in the next verse is beautiful but the Revisers ruined that also. They omitted "with tears, Lord" from the most precious answer as recorded by the Spirit of God. [/color][/b]

[b]9:45 "into the fire that never shall be quenched" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000] The character and duration of Hell is described here and the doctrine of eternal retribution is affected by this change. [/color][/b]

[b]9:47 "fire" is omitted. [/b] [b][color=990000] The words are inspired and in complete agreement with Rev. 20:15. The consignment of the lost to the lake of fire is a Bible doctrine. [/color][/b]

[b]10:21 "take up the cross" is left out. [/b] [b][color=990000] The word to the young man was to divest himself of the riches in which he trusted, consider himself dead to the world, and follow Christ into eternal life. There are many who will let go of riches and seek to emulate some of Christ's teachings, but the way of the cross they refuse. The cross for Christ and for believers is Fundamental in Christian doctrine. [/color][/b]

[b]10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation. Their God is their wealth and it is no more compatible with Christ than Dagon was with the Ark of God (see 1 Sam. 5:1-5). [/color][/b]

[b]11:26 The whole verse is removed.[/b] [b][color=990000] It is a Bible doctrine that if we regard iniquity in our heart the Lord will not hear us. Answered prayer and clean vessels go together. When I confess my sins and ask God for favor he requires that my confession of sin include forgiveness of those who have sinned against me. If I refuse to forgive others it becomes sin to me (see Eph. 4:32). [/color][/b]

[b]13:14 "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is dropped.[/b] [b][color=990000] Without the reference to Daniel the appeal to understand is without force. Though some might connect it in their thoughts because they are familiar with Scripture, it does not follow that he is referring to Daniel. The reference to Daniel by the Lord also authenticates his writing as inspired Scriptures. [/color][/b]

[b]14:22 "eat" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000] Our Lord did not give them a relic from the Last Supper to take home and cherish. He gave them broken bread to eat which (when observed) would always remind them of his body which was broken for them. [/color][/b]

[b]15:28 The whole verse is left out[/b]. [b][color=990000] Jesus was crucified between two thieves in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:12. It is doctrinal error to eliminate clear statements concerning the fulfilling of prophecy (see Luke 24:27). [/color][/b]

[b][color=990000] 16:9-20 Twelve verses are omitted. These verses are found in every known manuscript but two (the oldest of those two leaves a blank space where it belongs). They are found in all the Versions, quoted by the church fathers, and seen in the lectionaries of the church. There are many doctrines affected by the omission of these twelve verses. The resurrection of Christ is deleted. The great commission, baptism, eternal damnation and His ascension into Heaven are all taken out of the Word of God. Certainly the gospel does not end with "they were afraid." Some say the ending has been lost (see Dr. Ryrie's Study Bible) but that destroys the Bible Doctrine that God preserves His Word (see 1 Peter 1:23-25). The evidence is clear that these verses are original and to cut them out is to affect many doctrines of the Christian faith. [/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2008/4/28 10:22
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi waltern...

Quote:

crsschk wrote:

The claims you present are not completely without warrant but as was mentioned, there has been many, many postings on this in the past and not much of it has done anything but bring contention. Search it out for yourself, the subject has been beaten to death here and much ruin the result. The greatest problem is in suspicion and intent and a whole conspiracy mindedness that is largely impossible to prove one way or the other.

There is just no end to this and even your out takes are laced with innuendo and insinuation. They are contentious themselves. There are errors in translation in every version including the KJV and again this has been discussed ad nauseam. Some are far better than others and even our SI disclaimer makes a mention that 'we' are predominantly "KJV preferred" but not "only".

You might want to avail yourself of the past discussions before going on any further.


I agree.

The differences between the version authorized by King James in 1611 (which changed over a period of 150+ years) and those "modern" versions are simply the result of understanding which sources were used for translation. Each passage may differ -- not as a willful choice of the translators, but because of the sources used in the translation process. The KJV was taken mostly from the Textus Receptus with great attention paid to prior texts (like The Bishop's Bible). The Textus Receptus (or Majority Text) was mostly translated by a single Catholic man named Desiderius Erasmus. His text became the standard text for the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire.

In their preface, the translators of the version authorized by King James admitted that the version was far from perfect. From my experience, this has been the major point of contention for those who want to view the KJV as the only "perfect and inspired" translation. Yet to claim that this one translation is perfect, we are relying upon the premise that the Textus Receptus (from a Catholic priest) was also a perfect divinely inspired translation.

Many of the modern versions favored an examination of all available ancient text sources. Once the translation of a single passage was agreed upon, the translators were quick to note any sort of variations from other major text sources (and often, why they decided upon such terminology). This was also done for the version authorized by King James; however, the printing did not reflect the variances in how each passage could be read.

In the end, this sort of debate has its place. Too often, however, individuals seem to focus on a later work (like the KJV or NIV) rather than the text sources from which they came. Yet people can become quite divisive about the subject. Some are even quite adament that a particular version (usually the KJV) is the "only acceptable version" in the sight of God. I often wonder about what evidence such a matter is based? Was real research spent investigating these things -- or did such individuals base their beliefs solely upon the works and (supposed) research of others?

I recommend that each individual truly investigate these matters. However, instead of going to the library and picking up a book about how "perfect" the KJV is or how "corrupt" another translation is, why don't we just do the research for ourselves? Why can't we simply investigate the claims made by those who loudly and publicly present their hypotheses?

As a disclaimer: I consider the KJV to be a very sound translation taken mostly from the Textus Receptus and the NIV to be a very sound translation taken from the other sources.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2008/4/28 14:45Profile









 Re:What does yours say?

Walter's response:

Chris, your facts below are a little rusty. The Latin Vulgate Bible was the Bible of the Roman Cathoic Church, as well as the Bible of Constantines Rome. [b]This Bible (Latin Vulgate)relied upon the Minority Text, the text that the present Catholic Bibles rely on( Douay-Rheims and the New Jerusalem Bible).[/b]

[b]Of special note, everyone in the Western world was "Catholic" in the early 1500's. There were no other choices! Protestanism was in the future, thanks to Erasmus and Luther, and Stephanus, and others.[/b]

As far as Erasmus is concerned, he was indeed a Catholic in 1515 & 1516 when he was working on his own Greek Translation of the New Testament. In 1516 his Greek Translation was published by Froben of Basel.[b] This was the first published Greek New Testament that relied upon the Majority Text,[/b] the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. This critical edition included a Latin translation and annotations, and would be called the Textus Receptus.

The year after Erasmus published his work (1516), Luther used the Textus Receptus (TR) for the basis of a German translation of the New Testament. [b] Shortly thereafter, God – using Luther and his translation, (Majority Text) brought about the Reformation.[/b]

[b][color=0000FF]Luther and Erasmus knew each other. They did not always agree. One of the chief areas of disagreement between them was Luther's conviction that the Roman church was incapable of being reformed and he thought that Erasmus should join him in leaving. However Erasmus believed that he could better bring about reform by working from within the system. He was quite wrong. That reform has never occurred to this day .[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter
:-)

Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi waltern...
Quote:

crsschk wrote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
The differences between the version authorized by King James in 1611 (which changed over a period of 150+ years) and those "modern" versions are simply the result of understanding which sources were used for translation. Each passage may differ -- not as a willful choice of the translators, but because of the sources used in the translation process. The KJV was taken mostly from the Textus Receptus with great attention paid to prior texts (like The Bishop's Bible). The Textus Receptus (or Majority Text) was mostly translated by a single Catholic man named Desiderius Erasmus. His text became the standard text for the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Empire.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:-)



 2008/4/28 15:32
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Sorry, this is a really long article.



ERASMUS, HIS GREEK TEXT AND HIS THEOLOGY

By Doug Kutilek



Part One: Erasmus and His Greek New Testament

Desiderius Erasmus, (b. 1466?, d. July 12, 1536) was one of the most important men in Europe during one of the most important periods in all of European history, the time of the Protestant Reformation. Born in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Erasmus grew up in a world dominated by Roman Catholicism. He himself took, under duress, monastic vows, and was a lifelong devoted son of the Roman Church. He was a friend and acquaintance of kings, emperors, and popes.

Erasmus had, even from childhood, a craving to read, study, learn, and know. He spent his life as a scholar and writer. He was a man of quick wit and a keen mind. In 1509 he turned his literary talents to the ridicule and denunciation of monastic vice, immorality, and wickedness in his book Encomium Moriae ("The Praise of Folly"). This provoked the ire of the priests and monks. He had struck a raw nerve. But it must be noted that while Erasmus found the wickedness of the priests repulsive, he did not disapprove of Roman Catholic doctrine. He wished only for a reformation of priestly morals and conduct, not of Roman theology, and he disapproved of the doctrinal revolution initiated by Luther. Though Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched, Erasmus disowned completely his offspring.

Other literary works proceeded from Erasmus' pen, among them critical editions and translations of classical authors and early church fathers. The latter included Jerome, Hilary, Irenaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Origen, who was Erasmus' favorite church father (Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, p. 143), and of whom Erasmus once wrote, "I have also read a great part of Origen, who opens out new fountains of thought and furnishes a complete key to theology." (Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 93). Erasmus wrote many other works, including Colloquiae Familiaria ("Ordinary Conversations"), which gives sketches of life from his own day, and Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio ("Discourse on the Freedom of the Will"), to which Luther responded with his classic The Bondage of the Will.

Erasmus almost single-handedly revived the study of Greek in the universities of Europe. He seems to have been practically self-taught, there being no one to turn to for help. He lectured for a time on Greek at Cambridge University. The statement sometimes met with, that Tyndale went "to Cambridge to learn Greek under Erasmus, who was teaching there from 1510 to 1514" (so stated but not documented by Benjamin Wilkinson in Which Bible?, p. 145) is mere wishful thinking. F. F. Bruce (The English Bible, pp. 26-27) states, "It has sometimes been suggested that one of Erasmus' pupils at Cambridge was William Tyndale; unfortunately, the evidence is against this. Erasmus left Cambridge in 1514, and Tyndale probably did not arrive there before 1516 at the earliest."

Erasmus is generally acknowledged as the greatest classical scholar of his time, though he was better at Latin than Greek (Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and Revised Version, p. 230). But of far greater importance than the revival of Greek studies was his editing and publishing of the Greek New Testament for the first time in 1516. The degraded condition of Greek studies in Europe just before the Reformation is evidenced by the fact that while the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible was printed about 1453 (the famous Gutenberg Bible), and was in fact the first book ever printed after the invention of movable type, and the complete Hebrew Old Testament had been printed as early as 1488, no one put the Greek New Testament in print until 1514. The churchmen and scholars had the authoritative Vulgate, so what need was there, they thought, to have the Greek?

The idea of editing and printing the Greek New Testament perhaps occurred to Erasmus as early as 1506 (cf. Froude, pp. 100, 117-18), though a revision of the Vulgate translation occupied his attention to a greater degree. In 1514, a Greek New Testament was printed as part of the Complutensian Polyglot being produced in Spain (a delay of eight years intervened before the Complutensian New Testament was actually published). A printer named Froben in Basle, Switzerland, learned of the Spanish- produced Greek New Testament and wished to publish one himself and beat the other into the marketplace. So Froben negotiated with Erasmus, who finally agreed to take part in the enterprise. Erasmus traveled to Basle and used what few Greek manuscripts were there as the basis of his text. Printing began in September or October, 1515, and was completed in March, 1516. The book was dedicated to Pope Leo X, and was duly copyrighted (see facsimile of title page in Schaff, p. 532).

In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two additional manuscripts of each section, along with his Latin Vulgate. For Revelation, Erasmus had but one Greek manuscript which, though of better than average quality (so says Hort), yet lacked the last six verses of the book. To remedy this defect, Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, with the result that the final verses of Revelation in his printed Greek text contain numerous Greek readings found in no Greek manuscript of any kind, and are therefore devoid of manuscript authority. (A list of these are given in Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 296, n. 1, and Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1).

One of those readings produced by Erasmus that lacks any Greek manuscript support is the reference to the "book of life" in Rev. 22:19. All Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"; not a single one reads "book of life." The corruption of "tree" into "book" occurred in Latin when a careless or sleepy scribe miscopied the correct ligno (tree) as though it were the similar-appearing libro (book). When Erasmus back-translated from Latin, he introduced for the first time ever in Greek the reading "book of life" in Rev. 22:19, and by the slavish reprinting of Erasmus' text by later editors, the reading "book of life" found its way into the textus receptus and the King James Version, even though it is completely without support of any kind in any Greek manuscript.

But not only in Rev. 22:15-21 do readings without Greek manuscript support occur. One lengthy insertion made by Erasmus on the basis of the Latin Vulgate and not on the basis of Greek manuscripts is found in Acts 9:5-6. The words (as found in the King James Version), "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said to him," are not found in any Greek manuscript of Acts. Where did they come from? Erasmus found the passage in the Vulgate as he knew it but not in the Greek; nevertheless, he inserted the words into his Greek text, borrowing those forming part of verse 5 from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and back-translating those forming part of verse 6 from Latin into Greek. (See Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 201.) The slavish reprinting of Erasmus' text by later editors resulted in the textus receptus and the King James Version reading in Acts 9:5-6 as no Greek manuscript on earth has ever read. In fact, in more than twenty places, Erasmus' Greek text is not supported by any known Greek manuscript (Schaff, p. 231).

Devoid of truth is the bold assertion made by Benjamin Wilkinson without supporting documentation, that "There were hundreds of manuscripts for Erasmus to examine, and he did (emphasis added); but he only used a few." Wilkinson gives the clear implication that "the few Erasmus used were typical, that is, after he had thoroughly balanced the evidence of many," he used "the few which displayed the balance" (Which Bible?, p. 143). Erasmus no doubt was familiar with other Greek New Testament manuscripts besides those used in constructing his text, but to assert that he made a thorough investigation of hundreds of manuscripts and chose those typical of his findings is to fabricate that which did not happen. That Erasmus did not carefully select manuscripts he had found to be typically Byzantine is obvious from the fact that among his very limited resources was manuscript 1, one of the most non-Byzantine of the minuscule manuscripts; add to this the fact that Erasmus' sole manuscript of Revelation lacked the last six verses altogether, and it becomes transparently obvious that Wilkinson has engaged here, as he very often does, in a flight of fancy and mere wishful thinking rather than serious historical research.

The work on the Greek text was hastily and carelessly done. Erasmus' biographer Froude characterized Erasmus: "haste made him careless; and this fault always clung to him" (p. 8). Erasmus himself admitted that the work on his first edition "was done too hastily" (Froude, p. 189). He declared that the work was more precipitated than edited. Though Erasmus had spent fifteen years editing the works of Jerome and ten years in preparing a new Latin translation of the New Testament, he spent less than ten months, or rather part of ten months, in editing the Greek New Testament. The printer's work showed the haste of the production the book abounded in printer's errors, of which Scrivener said, "Erasmus' first edition is in that respect the most faulty book I know" (p. 296). Erasmus hated the tedium of proofreading and correcting his own books (Froude, p. 8).

One passage not included by Erasmus caused a great storm of controversy. That passage was the so-called Trinitarian passage, which in the King James Version reads, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" (found in 1 John 5:7- 8). The exclusion of these words from Erasmus' text was not from carelessness or haste, but was based on solid evidence: these words were not in the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus had used for his text; indeed, they were not found in any Greek text Erasmus had ever seen. When asked why he had deleted this proof text for the trinity, he replied that he didn't find it at all in the Greek manuscripts. The combination of accusations of Arianism, with Erasmus' thin-skinned sensitivity to criticism, caused him to rashly vow that if any Greek manuscript could be found to include the words in question, he would add them to his text. A manuscript was duly manufactured in Britain to suit the conditions of Erasmus' vow, so in his third edition (1522), Erasmus added the words to his text, but added a marginal note declaring his belief that the manuscript had been deliberately doctored. (The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see for himself by examining the evidence in, e.g., the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp. 503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].) Luther never included the passage in any German translation produced in his lifetime. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they thought the suspect words were spurious.

Erasmus' Greek New Testament sold quickly, as Froben had anticipated. A second edition was soon called for. The opportunity was taken to correct mistakes and revise the text somewhat, on the basis of an additional manuscript. The second edition was published in 1519; this edition served as the basis for Luther's translation. A total of 3,300 copies of the first two editions were sold (Scrivener, p. 297). A third edition (for the first time including 1 John 5:7) came out in 1522. Tyndale based his epoch-making translation on this edition. A fourth edition, revised on the basis of the Complutensian Greek text (90 changes were made in Revelation alone) came out in 1527, and a fifth in 1535. These editions were, of course, not exactly alike. Mill estimated (greatly underestimated, according to Scrivener) the variations to number: between the first and second editions, 400; between second and third, 118; third and fourth, 113; fourth and fifth, 5 (Scrivener, p. 298).

Erasmus' fourth and fifth editions were all but slavishly reprinted by Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivirs, and others, in their editions of the Greek New Testament in the century that followed. All these collectively are often referred to as the textus receptus, or received text. It must be observed that these reprints merely reproduced, without examination of evidence, the hastily-produced text of Erasmus. The result is that the text of Erasmus, hurriedly assembled out of the slimmest of manuscript resources, containing a number of readings without any Greek manuscript support, became for nearly 300 years the only form of the Greek New Testament available in print, and the basic text for the Protestant translations of the New Testament made in those centuries. The so-called received text cannot claim authority on the basis of extensive manuscript evidence employed in its construction, for only a mere handful of manuscripts out of the thousands that exist were used in its compilation. Nor can it claim authority on the basis of a careful and deliberate sifting of evidence, for it was rushed through the hands of Erasmus and into print in great haste. Nor can it claim authority as representing always the Byzantine or majority text type (which some I think wrongly believe is the most original form of the New Testament text), for it departs from the majority of manuscripts in over 1,000 places (Pickering, Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 232).

In short, there is no ground whatsoever for accepting the textus receptus as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New Testament. Rather than being the most pristine and pure Greek New Testament, it was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a provisional text that could be made to serve for the time being until greater care, more thorough labor, and more extensive evidence could be had so as to provide a text of greater accuracy. It is unfortunate that what was only a meager first attempt at publishing a New Testament Greek text became fossilized as though it were the ultimate in accuracy. It was not until the nineteenth century that the shackles of mere tradition were thrown off and a Greek text based on a careful and thorough examination of an extensive amount of manuscript evidence was made available. The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, and Westcott and Hort were, individually and collectively, a great improvement over the text of Erasmus, because they more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came from the pens of the Apostles.

In spite of the limitations and defects of the textus receptus, there is consolation in the fact that there is hardly a hair's breadth in doctrinal difference between Erasmus' text and that of, say, Westcott and Hort. Both texts are orthodox in theology. Where they differ, it is usually a case of the textus receptus supplementing or filling out passages by borrowing words from a parallel Gospel account or a similar phrase in another Epistle; an addition based on liturgical usage; expanding a title of one of the three persons of the Trinity; revising an Old Testament quotation into conformity to the Septuagint translation, or smoothing out an apparent difficulty in the original text. A. T. Robertson wrote, "It should be stated at once that the Textus Receptus is not a bad text. It is not a heretical text. It is substantially correct." (Introduction to Textual Criticism, p. 21; cf. p. 196.) J. Harold Greenlee has summarized the situation very well: "The Textus Receptus is not a `bad' or misleading text, either theologically or practically. Technically, however, it is far from the original text. Yet three centuries were to pass before scholars had won the struggle to replace this hastily- assembled text by a text which gave evidence of being closer to the N. T. autographs" (Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 72). God in His providence has seen fit that the text of the Greek New Testament has been kept doctrinally intact, so that there is no doctrinal issue garbled or marred by the manuscript and printed variations that exist. Richard Bentley, the greatest authority on the text of the New Testament in the eighteenth century, stated, "the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.... But even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same" (quoted in Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 7). F. H. A. Scrivener wrote of "the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument, and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration.... Thus hath God's Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people" (Plain Introduction, pp. 6-7).

I do not wish to be too hard on Erasmus. After all, I recognize him as a pioneer who opened up a frontier for others to follow and laid a foundation on which others would build. Erasmus did not have the leisure (because of Froben's urging of haste) nor the resources, either in manuscripts or money, to produce as thoroughly and carefully and accurately done a Greek New Testament as he might have, had he had the things he lacked. But in a number of matters, his judgment on the original text of the New Testament closely follows that of recent editors of the New Testament. As we have seen, he rejected 1 John 5:7 as not being an original part of 1 John. In this, all Greek New Testament editions (other than mere reprints of Erasmus' text) agree, including The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad. Erasmus also surmised that the doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6:13, "for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever, amen," was a later liturgical addition to Matthew, and formed no original part of that Gospel (Bainton, p. 137). In this virtually all Greek New Testament editors agree. Further, Erasmus doubted that Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 formed an original part of those Gospels (ibid., p. 136). On the basis of available evidence, most New Testament editors agree with the judgement of Erasmus (the evidence on these disputed passages can be readily found in Alford's commentary or Metzger's Textual Commentary). All in all, Erasmus believed "the only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices" (Bainton, p. 135). It is not unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that, were Erasmus alive today, he would use a Greek text like that of Nestle or the United Bible Societies' text.

One more matter about the text Erasmus published: in each edition he included in a column parallel to the Greek text a revision of the Latin Vulgate translation made by Jerome around 400 A.D. It must be remembered that Jerome's Latin translation had become esteemed and venerated to the point that it was considered beyond improvement, beyond correction, beyond alteration of any kind. Some even claimed the Greek and Hebrew originals of the Bible should be corrected by the Latin! (See Gill, Body of Divinity, p. 13.) No other translation of the Bible had been so widely used by God, they would protest. Bainton gives a lively account of the furor that arose over the revision of the Vulgate. Dorp, a friend and colleague of Erasmus, was shocked and outraged to hear that Erasmus proposed to publish the New Testament in Greek and accompanied by a new translation. To be sure Ambrose and Augustine had not depended upon Jerome's translation, but after he had castigated all of the errors his rendering had become standard as the basis for the decrees of councils. "What councils?" demanded Erasmus. "There were Greek councils which did not know Latin at all." "Don't listen to the Greeks," said Dorp. "They were heretics." "But," rejoined Erasmus, "Aristotle was even a pagan. Will you not read him? If you claim that the Vulgate is inspired equally with the original Greek and Hebrew and that to touch it is heresy and blasphemy what will you say about Bede, Rhabanus, Thomas Aquinas, and Nicolas of Lyra, not to mention others who undertook to make improvements? You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture, and the transmission of both. What will you do with the errors of copyists?" Dorp was eventually persuaded and Erasmus was thereby confirmed in his judgment that courtesy rather than invective is the better way to win over an opponent. A sharper antagonist was Sutor, once of the Sorbonne, later a Carthusian who asserted that "if in one point the Vulgate were in error the entire authority of Holy Scripture would collapse, love and faith would be extinguished, heresies and schisms would abound, blasphemy would be committed against the Holy Spirit, the authority of theologians would be shaken, and indeed the Catholic Church would collapse from the foundations." Erasmus pointed out that prior to Jerome the early Church had not used the Vulgate and had not collapsed. To all who cried, "Jerome is good enough for me," he replied, "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices." (Bainton, p. 135)

D'Aubigne describes Erasmus' adversaries on this point: "The priests saw the danger, and... attacked the translation and the translator. `He has corrected the Vulgate,' they said, `and put himself in the place of Saint Jerome. He sets aside a work authorized by the consent of ages and inspired by the Holy Ghost. What audacity!' " (History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, p. 730)

Sir Thomas More, an Englishman and close friend of Erasmus, came to the defense of both the printing of a Greek New Testament and the revision of the Latin translation of Jerome:

I am in danger, forsooth, because I consider Erasmus
(as a good Greek scholar) to have given a better rendering
of passages in the New Testament than I find in the
received translation. Where is the danger? May I not
find pleasure in a work which the learned and pious admire,
and which the Pope himself has twice approved? Erasmus
determined nothing. He gives the facts and leaves the reader
to judge. Froude, p. 151) You complain of the study of Greek
and Hebrew. You say it leads to the neglect of Latin. Was
not the New Testament written in Greek? Did not
the early Fathers write in Greek? Is truth only to be
found in Gothic Latin? You will have no novelties; you say
the "old is better;" of course it is; the wisdom of the
Fathers is better than the babblings of you moderns.
You pretend that the Gospels can be understood without Greek;
that there is no need of a new translation; we have the Vulgate
and others besides, you say, anda new version was superfluous.
I beseech you, where are these others? I have never met a man
who has seen any but the Vulgate. Produce them. And for the
Vulgate itself, it is nonsense to talk of the many ages for
which it has been approved by the Church. It was the best the
Church could get. When once in use it could not easily be
changed, but to use it is not to approve it as perfect.
(Ibid., pp. 152- 153)


Froude himself describes the situation.

Pious, ignorant men had regarded the text of
the Vulgate as sacred, and probably inspired.
Read it intelligently they could not, but they had
made the language into an idol, and they were
filled with horrified amazement when they found in page
after page that Erasmus had anticipated modern criticism,
correcting the text, introducing various readings,
and retranslating passages from the Greek into a new
version. He had altered a word from the Lord's Prayer.
Horror of horrors! He had changed the translation of the
mystic Logos from Verbum into Sermo, to make people
understand what Logos meant. (Ibid., p. 234)

Substitute "English" for "Latin" and "King James Version" for "Vulgate" in the above quotes, and one needs very little imagination to see how precisely these remarks, first of Erasmus, then More, and finally of Froude, address the present English Bible translation controversy, and fully answer the antagonists in our day who object to any and every kind of revision, correction or improvement of the King James Version, even where the Greek text behind it is devoid of adequate manuscript support, where printer's errors still persist, where the English disagrees with the meaning of the original, or the English has become shrouded in obscurity through 400 years of change in the English language. The doctrine that the King James Version, or any other translation tion of the Bible, is sacrosanct and inviolable expressly denies the infallibility and authority of the Bible in the original languages. This is a fundamental doctrinal error and destroys the very foundations of the Christian faith.

Human nature (I might have said human perversity) has not changed in half a millennium. The doctrine of the medieval Catholic priests and monks that the translation of the New Testament they had always had and used was perfect in every jot and tittle has merely been adopted by some ill-informed Baptists (and others) today and transferred to the English translation they have always had and used. Ignorance loves darkness and objects to change of every kind, but the truth never fears the light. The sound reasoning and solid arguments that refuted such folly in the sixteenth century are still valid today.




_________________
Jordan

 2008/4/28 16:25Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Part Two: Erasmus and His Theology

Erasmus, as we have shown, was responsible for the publishing of the Greek New Testament for the first time. In his lifetime, five editions were issued by him. These editions, and especially the fourth (1527), were more or less slavishly reprinted by Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivirs, and others. All these editions are now collectively referred to as the textus receptus or received text (though no two are precisely alike in every single detail, differing from one another in a number of minor matters). In a very real way, then, Erasmus is the father of the received Greek text, which served as the basic text for all Protestant New Testament translations until the 19th century.

There is currently in some quarters a lively debate over Greek texts, namely whether the textus receptus text or the critical text usually identified as the Westcott-Hort text more accurately reproduces the inerrant original writings of the Apostles. In reality, Westcott and Hort were not the first to print a revised Greek text, nor the last to do so. The English Revised Version of 1881 did not precisely follow their text. While a handful of obscure English translations were made directly from the Westcott-Hort text, no one holds today that this text is precisely correct in every reading and detail. Nevertheless, we will use the Westcott-Hort text for comparison, since it is mentioned so prominently.

Various arguments have been put forward to discredit the Westcott-Hort text. One of these, employed by Benjamin Wilkinson in "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" (included as part of Which Bible?, edited by D. O. Fuller, 2nd ed., 1971) is the classic tactic, "poisoning the wells" (see A. J. Hoover, Don't You Believe It!, pp. 63-65, for an explanation of this particular type of fallacious argument). This line of argument seeks to discredit information a priori by discrediting its source before even considering the information the source has to present. The maxim, "If you cannot answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names," summarizes this argument. In the case of Westcott and Hort, the vile names hurled at them are "apostate" and "Romish." Wilkinson tries to establish (pp. 194- 199) by quotes extracted from biographies of Westcott and of Hort that they were less than orthodox, less than conservative, sympathetic to higher criticism, and inclined to Roman Catholicism These things being established as true in Wilkinson's mind, the implication is then given that these errors automatically discredit everything Westcott and Hort did, including in particular their Greek text.

I do not write to defend the orthodoxy of either Hort or Westcott. I have not read the biography of either, and have read only small amounts of Westcott's commentaries. Of Hort's works, I have read a part of his "Introduction" to their edition of the Greek New Testament, plus one other small and rather unimportant book. Since this is not enough in the case of either man to form a first-hand opinion as to his doctrinal soundness, I will reserve judgment until such time that I have read more extensively in their works. I do write, however, to expose the inherent flaw in the "poisoning the wells" argument as used by Wilkinson and others. This tactic is logically fallacious and doesn't "wash" in this particular case for several reasons.

First, Wilkinson's case is substantially weaker than a casual reading may indicate. One the one hand, a number of the quotes are colorless. Hort is quoted as saying, "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the oft-renewed vitality of Mariolatry." Such a statement surely does not implicate Hort in Mary-worship. Who has not been surprised at the continued worship of Mary, including the construction of shrines with cement statues as found in the yards of many Catholics? Such idolatrous folly in otherwise educated people is indeed difficult to understand. This quotation proves nothing at all.

On the other hand, Wilkinson has (wittingly or unwittingly) altered the thrust of at least one quote through deletion. Under the heading "Their Mariolatry," Westcott is quoted at length (p. 195):

After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory (a small chapel for private prayer) which we discovered on the summit of a neighboring hill.... Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small with one kneeling-place; and behind the screen was a "Pieta" the size of life (i.e., a Virgin and dead Christ).... Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.

From the quotation in its edited form, it appears that Westcott was here inclined to venerate this statue of Mary and Jesus. However, the full quotation shows just the opposite. In the second editorial deletion made by Wilkinson (immediately following the parenthesis), Westcott continues:

The sculpture was painted and such a group in such a place and at such a time was deeply impressive. I could not help thinking on the fallen grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error [emphasis added], on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and purer end, strive to imitate. (Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, vol. I, p. 81)

Then follows the remark about praying for hours. Clearly it was not the statue or veneration for Mary that compelled him to want to pray, but recognition that those in error are often more zealous, self-devoted, and earnest than the orthodox. Certainly it would serve Christianity well if our enthusiasm in propagating our belief matched that of the heterodox.

Of course, some of the quotations produced by Wilkinson do seem to set Hort and Westcott in a bad light doctrinally. I do not deny this, nor do I care to gloss over their theological errors or defend them in any way. However, doctrinal error does not in and of itself discredit their Greek text. "If the premises are sufficient, they are so, no matter by whom stated" (M. R. Cohen). "You can prove I'm the Devil's brother, and you still haven't answered my argument" (Anonymous, both quoted by Hoover, p. 59).

Second, many doctrinally orthodox men have accepted the critical Greek text as more closely corresponding to the inerrant original writings than the textus receptus. S. P. Tregelles was a British scholar affiliated first with the Plymouth Brethren and reportedly later with the Baptists. (See Schaff-Herzog, vol. IV, p. 2388, and Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, p. 352.) Tregelles was premillennial and wrote a famous commentary defending the Book of Daniel. He produced a revised Greek text (1857- 1879) before the Westcott-Hort text was issued (1881). Tregelles' text was the result of decades of laborious and exacting personal inspection of manuscripts. These is very little difference in substance between his text and the later text of Westcott and Hort. If orthodoxy in theology guaranteed the soundness of an author's textual studies, then we would be compelled to accept the critical text because Tregelles was doctrinally orthodox. (The same line of argument could be pursued using another 19th century Greek text editor, Constantine Tischendorf.

Not only text editors, but also pastors, scholars, and seminary professors of unquestioned doctrinal orthodoxy could be paraded almost ad infinitum who accept the primacy of the critical text. A few examples will suffice. B. B. Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, was one of the authors of The Fundamentals. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., called him "the greatest defender of the inerrancy of the Bible among scholarly theologians of the recent past." (See A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, vol. I, p. 325.) In his book Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Warfield advocated the superiority of the critical text over the received text. John A. Broadus, the preeminent Baptist in America in the 19th century, advocated the superiority of the revised text of the textus receptus (Commentary on Matthew, preface, p. xlix; On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, Weatherspoon revision, pp. 21-22, 36). A. T. Robertson, probably the greatest New Testament scholar America has ever seen, and an orthodox Baptist, advocated the revised Greek text as more accurately representing the original text of the New Testament than the textus receptus (An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, throughout). We could add the names of Spurgeon (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, pp. 342-343), B. H. Carroll (Inspiration of the Bible, pp. 52-53, 105) and a multitude more, but this is unnecessary. The point made is this: if doctrinal orthodoxy alone guaranteed sound judgment on matters of the Greek text, then the critical or revised text should be accepted simply because sound men do so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the one argument is invoked (discrediting the critical text because of the heterodoxy of Westcott and Hort), then so must the other (accepting the critical text because of the orthodoxy of Tregelles, Warfield, Broadus, Robertson et al.) In reality, neither argument has any necessary relationship to the issue at hand.

Third, if there are hints of Romish leanings in Hort and Westcott (we allow the assertion for the sake of argument), there is a veritable flood of quotes from Erasmus himself protesting his absolute and undying loyalty to Roman Catholicism, its doctrine, and its pope.

Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest. While he vigorously denounced the corruption and immorality of the monks and priests of his day, he did not object to Roman Catholic doctrine. He objected to Roman conduct, not to Roman theology. He was a lifelong, devoted Catholic. Note his own words (taken from Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus):

From the time when I was a child I have been a devoted worshipper of St. Anne. I composed a hymn to her when I was young, and the hymn I now send to you, another Anne. I send to you, besides, a collection of prayers to the Holy Virgin. They are not spells to charm the moon out of the sky, but they will bring down out of Heaven her who brought forth the Sun of Righteousness. She is easy to approach. (p. 86)

Disowning any connection at all with Luther, Erasmus wrote, "Christ I know; Luther I know not. The Roman Church I know, and death will not part me from it till the Church departs from Christ" (p. 261). Again, "I have sought to save the dignity of the Roman Pontiff, the honour of Catholic theology, and the welfare of Christendom" (p. 262). And again, But be assured of this, if any movement is in progress injurious to the Christian religion, or dangerous to the public peace or to the supremacy of the Holy See, it does not proceed from Erasmus.... I have not deviated in what I have written one hair's breadth from the Church's teaching. p. 162) I am not so mad as to fly in the face of the Vicar of Christ. (pp. 271-272)

The Holy See needs no support from such a worm as I am, but I shall declare that I mean to stand by it. (p. 270)

The Pope's authority as Christ's Vicar must be upheld. (p. 275)

You may assure yourself that Erasmus has been, and always will be, a faithful subject of the Holy See. (p. 279)

The Lutherans alternately courted me and menaced me. For all this, I did not move a finger's breadth from the teaching of the Roman Church. (p. 340)

... I will bear anything before I forsake the Church. (p. 355)

Froude speaks of the need to clearly differentiate between Erasmus' desire to change the conduct of the Church and Luther's desire to change its doctrine:

You cannot understand the sixteenth century till you recognize the immense difference then present in the minds of men between a change of doctrine and a reformation of the Church's manners and morals. (pp. 295-296)

This truth is illustrated by a number of Erasmus' own statements:

The reformers turn the images out of the churches, which originally were useful and ornamented. They might have been content to forbid the worship of images, and to have removed only the superfluous. They will have no priests. It would be better to have priests of learning and piety, and to provide that orders are not hastily entered into. There would be fewer of them, but better three good than three hundred bad. They do not like so much ritual. True, but it would be enough to abolish the absurd. Debauched priests who do nothing but mumble masses are generally hated. Do away with the hirelings, and allow but one celebration a day in the churches. Indulgences, with which the monks so long fooled the world with the connivance of the theologians, are now exploded. Well, then, let those who have no faith in saints' merits pray to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, imitate Christ in their lives, and leave those alone who do believe in saints. If the saints do not hear them, Christ may hear them. Confession is an ancient custom. Let those who deny that it is a sacrament observe it till the Church decides otherwise. No great harm can come of confession so long as men confess only their own mortal sins. Let men think as they please of purgatory, without quarreling with others who do not think as they do. Theologians may argue about free will in the Sorbonne. Laymen need not puzzle themselves with conundrums. Whether works justify or faith justifies matters little, since all allow that faith will not save without works. In Baptism let the old rule be kept. Parents may perhaps be left to decide whether it shall be administered in infancy or delayed to maturity. Anabaptists must not be tolerated.... As to the Eucharist, let the old opinion stand till a council has provided a new revelation. The Eucharist is only adored so far as Christ is supposed to be present there as God. The human nature is not adored, but the Divine nature, which is Omnipresent. The thing to be corrected is the abuse of the administration. (pp. 344-345)

The mass has been made a trade for illiterate and sordid priests, and a contrivance to quiet the conscience of reprobates. So the cry is raised, "Abolish the mass, put it away, make an end of it." Is there no middle course? Cannot the mass be purified? Saint-worship has been carried so far that Christ has been forgotten. Therefore, respect for saints is idolatry, and orders founded on their names must be dissolved. Why so violent a remedy? Too much has been made of rituals and vestments, but we might save, if we would, the useful part of such things. Confession has been abused, but it could be regulated more strictly. (p. 358; cf. also p. 360)

But never will I be tempted or exasperated into deserting the true communion.... I will not forsake the Church myself, I would forfeit life and reputation sooner.... Doubtless I have wished that popes and bishops and cardinals were more like the apostles, but never in thought have I desired those offices be abolished. There may be arguments about the Real Presence, but I will never believe the Christ would have allowed the Church to remain so long in such an error (if error it be) as to worship a wafer for God. (p. 365)

Erasmus wished to avoid technical discussion concerning transubstantiation. "Such problems may be discussed among the learned. For the vulgar it is enough to believe that the real body and blood of our Lord are actually present" (p. 386)

And finally, did Erasmus reject the basis tenets of Romanism? Some of his accusers affirmed so. In defense, he wrote:

... they sing the old song. Erasmus laughs at the
saints, despises the sacraments, denies the faith,
is against clerical celibacy, monks' vows,
and human institutions.Erasmus paved the way for Luther.
So they gabble; and it is all lies. (p. 421)

Church historian Philip Schaff, while acknowledging that in many ways Erasmus laid the foundation for the Reformation, said his influence was felt in other areas as well: "He was as much a forerunner of Rationalism as of the Reformation." (History of the Christian Church, vol. VII, p. 404). His son David S. Schaff, in the same set speaks of Erasmus' loyalty to Rome:

Erasmus never intended to separate from Rome any more than his English friends, John Colet and Thomas More. He declared he had never departed from the judgment of the Church, nor could he. "Her consent is so important to me that I would agree with the Arians and Pelagians if the Church should approve of what they taught." (vol. VI, p. 641)

Roland Bainton, in his biography of Erasmus, characterized the fundamental theological differences between Erasmus and Luther:

Luther shrank from the sight of the crucifix because the Christ on the cross would some day sit upon a rainbow to consign the damned to eternal perdition. Erasmus shuddered at death because it might cut him off before he could so far progress in virtue as to be "capable of eternal life." (p. 17)

The reading of Froude's biography of Erasmus left me with the distinct impression that Erasmus believed that sincerity alone was enough to please God.

One interesting side note on the theology of Erasmus: his favorite church father, like that of Hort, was Origen (Bainton, p. 143). Of Origen's writings, Erasmus wrote, "I have also read a great part of Origen, who opens out new fountains of thought and furnishes a complete key to theology" (Froude, p. 93).

It must also be remembered that Erasmus' first edition of his Greek New Testament was approved by Pope Leo X (Froude, p. 191).

Doctrinally, there is no question where Erasmus stood. Our perception is not limited to a few hints or suggestions, a deduction here or an inference there. Boldly and repeatedly, Erasmus declares himself to be a loyal and devoted Romanist, consenting to all that Rome stood for doctrinally, with its Mary- worship, veneration of the saints, sacrifice of the mass, papal supremacy, purgatory, monastic vows and orders and all else. He refused to side with Luther, and vigorously opposed the Protestant Reformation. He sought and got the Pope's sanction for his New Testament.

If theological inclination accredits or discredits a man's work on the text of the New Testament I do not think there is any necessary connection, but this is the argument of Wilkinson and others if Romish and heretical leanings by Westcott and Hort discredit their Greek text, then the text of Erasmus and all subsequent editions based on it, i.e., all textus receptus editions, are blown completely out of the water.

I trust advocates of the supremacy of the textus receptus see the corner into which they paint themselves by using this faulty argument. I strongly urge that the merit or demerit of printed Greek Testaments be evaluated on the basis of manuscript evidence, ancient translations, quotations from patristic authors, and principles of textual criticism, and not on the basis of the largely irrelevant issue of the theology of the text-editors.




_________________
Jordan

 2008/4/28 16:26Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Walter...

Did you read the rest of my post? You didn't seem to touch on it. If you study the life of Eramus, you will realize that his beliefs were far from what most believers today would call "mainstream." Yet we somehow have believers today who believe that a translation that is based largely upon this single man's work as "perfect."

I'm not saying that you are one of those who believe that the KJV is the only perfect or right version. However, your posts in this thread seem to indicate an unrealistic causality concerning the differences between the KJV and a modern version like the NIV. The KJV is different from the NIV -- not because the translators of the NIV wanted to change the words -- but because the sources used did not support the same sort of translation as the KJV. So to compare the two is like trying to compare apples and oranges. The two sources are different; thus, the subsequent translations will reflect those differences.

Translation is a difficult process. For instance, if you compare the translations of Francis Scott Key's [i]The Star Spangled Banner[/i] in Spanish -- you might be surprised to find several variations. In fact, no matter where you go, the translation will be somewhat different. Now imagine trying to translate each of those Spanish versions of [i]The Star Spangled Banner[/i] into Russian. What is the likelihood that each translation would be exactly the same?

The King James Version is an English translation of a Greek compilation known as the Textus Receptus (performed almost entirely by a single Catholic man named Erasmus) with strong attention paid to other existing English versions. The Textus Receptus is taken mostly from the Byzantine (Majority) text source, but differs from it in nearly 2000 places. Ironically, Erasmus was in a hurry to complete his translation and admitted to having translated some passages from the Latin Vulgate into Greek for the completion of his work.

Ironically, most of us criticize [i]The Living Bible[/i] because it is also the work of a single man. I am not claiming that Erasmus was biased in his creation of the Textus Receptus. There are claims that he altered some of his passages to correspond with verses in the Vulgate (as well as traditional Church teaching). However, it seems to be a faithful rendition of the New Testament into 16th Century Greek.

A vast majority of text scholars prefer an eclectic approach of Scripture translation that favors no single source. It considers all sources – including the Alexandrian text type while cross referencing the Byzantine. This was the basis for some academic translations (like the NIV). Unfortunately, there have been quite a few rumors and old wives tales whispered (or even shouted) about that version of the Bible. I’ve long thought that an attempt to malign one version (like the NIV) is not a very effective way of promoting another (like the KJV).

It is unproductive to simply search through the Scriptures to find particular passages that differ between the KJV and the NIV. Why? They are taken from different sets of sources. They simply are derived from what the translators found by comparing the sources.

But this is a very, very tiring subject. It has been discussed many times here at SermonIndex over the years. As Mike (the moderator) pointed out, it might be helpful to look up those threads rather than simply creating a new thread that repeats many of the same things. I might suggest, however, that you open yourself to discussion rather than by making an attempt to proselyte others to your views.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2008/4/28 16:32Profile









 Re: What does yours say?

Dear Ccchhhrrriiisss:

Just to let you know, I did take the Moderators advice and look at the prior posts on Bible Versions. I have purposely not engaged anyone on this thread. My purpose is only to post the vast differences between the two texts. 1) The Authorized Version, the Majority text and 2) the Catholic version, the Minority text.

I really have no interest in getting into the very interesting details of Desiderius Erasmus, who had unlimited access to the Vatican Library, as well as all of the libraries and institutions of Europe. He also had unlimited access to the writings of the early Church Fathers (Patristics) that assisted him in his work.

[b]With that being said, I do not want this post to end as the others, with nothing more than division and nothing more than “he said—she said.”

Please Ccchhhrrriiisss, if you or others have scriptures from the NIV or any other newer versions that equal or surpass the Doctrine of the King James, then please post them here. If you find doctrine presented in the Majority text that is better presented in the NIV or other newer versions, then post it here. In that way, we will be able to keep this on a high level, and we all might learn something in the process. This is not a battle that has to be won by one party or another. This is God's Word, presented in two forms--the Majority text and the Minority text. Let the texts speak for themselves.[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

[b]LUKE[/b]

[b]1:28 "blessed art thou among women" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] There were many virgins in Israel at the time, but God chose Mary. The Son that she bore would be her Saviour from sin. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (concerning her birth) is nothing but pagan fiction. Mary was blessed AMONG women, but not ABOVE women. The worship of Mary is contrary to Scripture. This omission is designed to lift her above others and eventually deify her. [/color][/b]

[b]2:14 "peace, good will toward men" is changed to "peace among men of good will."[/b] [b][color=990000] The first talks of the birth of Christ as bringing God's peace and good will (reconciliation) to men. Faith in the death of Christ for our sins brings justification and peace with God. The change offers God's peace to men who are good. That is doctrinally unsound since there is none good. [/color][/b]

[b]2:33 "Joseph and his mother" is changed to "his father and mother." [/b][b][color=990000]The Spirit of God is very careful to show that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and that he did not have a human father who begat him. The change casts doubt upon the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ as the "seed of the woman." Later, when Mary refers to Joseph as "thy father," Jesus answers with, "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business," meaning that God was his father (see 2:48,49). [/color][/b]

[b]2:40 "in spirit" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] That the child grew and waxed strong in spirit (meaning that he was spiritually strong) is evident from verse 47. It is unlikely that the Spirit of God wanted us to see how strong Jesus was with reference to his physique. [/color][/b]

[b]2:43 "and Joseph and his mother knew not of it" is changed to "and his parents were unaware of it."[/b] [b][color=990000] The first retains the teachings of the virgin birth, the second discards it. The virgin birth is a Fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith and the MAJORITY Text upholds it. Let us not hear of supposed overzealous copyists but rather let us beware of overzealous heretics who would deny the fundamentals of the faith. [/color][/b]

[b]4:4 "but by every Word of God" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000]Many are willing to agree that bread alone cannot satisfy man, but few are willing to live by every word of God. This quotation is from Deut. 8:3 where the omitted words are found. The same one who said, "Yea, hath God said?" is the author of this omission. The Revisers could not leave this passage in because they have changed "every word of God" in over 5,000 places in the New Testament. Satan does not mind if we read the Bible as long as we have a Swiss cheese Bible (full of holes). Holes in the Word cause doubts in the Word, doubts cause faith to be lost, and without faith it is impossible to please him. [/color][/b]

[b]4:8 "Get thee behind me, Satan" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] The devil had tempted Jesus to bypass the cross and receive the kingdom over the world. Jesus, whose face was set as a flint to go to the cross, refused to worship him. [/color][/b]

[b]6:10 "whole as the other" is left out.[/b] [b][color=990000] These words tell us that not only was his hand restored to use but it was whole as the other. The completeness of the miracle is attested to by these words. [/color][/b]

[b]9:54 "even as Elias did" is omitted. [/b] [b][color=990000]Apart from this word they had no precedent for doing such a thing. [/color][/b]

[b][color=990000]9:55, 56 "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" is omitted. In reply to the disciples who thought that they could call down fire from heaven, Jesus told them that he came to save men. This passage is consistent with John 3:17, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved." [/color][/b]

[b][color=990000]11:2-4 "Our ... which art in heaven" is deleted along with "Thy will be done as in heaven, so in earth" and "but deliver us from evil." Only corrupt manuscripts can produce so many departures from the disciples prayer which is found without deletions in Matt. 6:9-13. [/color][/b]

14:5 [b]The word "ass" is changed to "son."[/b] [b][color=990000] The use of "son" is too much for the comparison the Lord is making. Only a slavish loyalty to a corrupt Greek text can produce such a foolish change. [/color][/b]

[b]22:31 "And the Lord said" is dropped.[/b] [b][color=990000] The Lord Jesus was God and as such he was omnipresent and omniscient. He was present when Satan came before God and asked permission to try Peter's faith. He had prayed to the Father, as Peter's intercessor, that his faith would not fail. It was the Lord who knew all of this and warned Peter specifically. [/color][/b]

[b]22:64 "they struck him on the face" is dropped. [/b] [b][color=990000]It is error to minimize the sufferings of Christ. His facial appearance was marred more than any man (see Isaiah 52:14 and 53:5). [/color][/b]

[b]23:23 "and of the chief priests" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] The Lord was careful to let us know that the religious priests were involved in the rejection of Christ. Those who call themselves priests today do likewise. [/color][/b]

[b][color=990000]23:42 "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" is changed to "Then he said, Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom." The confession that Jesus is Lord is doctrinally correct because it is required for salvation (see Rom. 10:9- 13). [/color][/b]

[b]23:45 "the sun was darkened" is changed to "the sun was eclipsed."[/b] [b][color=990000] The Greek word in the corrupt Greek Text is EKLIPONTOS from which we derive the word ECLIPSE. An eclipse is caused by the natural occurrence of the moon passing between the sun and the earth and usually lasts for about 3-5 minutes. The sun being darkened for three hours was a miracle of God and will be repeated again prior to the Lord's return to earth (see Matt. 24:29) Many modern versions try to hide the Greek word they are using to translate from the corrupt Greek text by using words like: obscured (NASV), faded (AMPLIFIED), stopped shining (NIV), failed (NEW WORLD), but some honestly translate the word "eclipse" (20th CENTURY, MOFFAT, NEB, PHILLIPS). Humanism would try to find some way to explain away the miracles of God's Word lest they be forced to accept it as the revelation from God concerning salvation. [/color][/b]

[b]24:36 "and saith unto them. Peace be unto you" is omitted.[/b] [b][color=990000] Jesus had said to them, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you" (John 14:27). He was now risen from the dead and in their midst to guarantee that peace to them. One of the greatest benefits of our salvation is to have peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and the peace of God ruling in our hearts (Phil. 4:7). [/color][/b]
[b][color=990000]24:40 The whole verse is omitted. The bodily resurrection of Christ is proven here as he showed them his hands and his feet. The omission affects Bible doctrine very much. [/color][/b]

[b]24:51 "and carried up into heaven" is left out. [/b] [b][color=990000]The bodily ascension of Christ into heaven is a Bible doctrine that is denied here. It leaves the Lord parted from them but does not tell us where he went. The Revisers removed the doctrine and left the Word in a poor state of disarray. Acts 1:1, 2 tells us that the "former treatise" (Luke) ended with Jesus being "taken up." That ought to be sufficient to show the Revisers are wrong. [/color][/b]

[b]24:52 "And ... worshipped him" is omitted by the NASV.[/b] [b][color=990000]The MAJORITY Text says, "And they having worshipped him returned to Jerusalem with great joy." The picture we have is of our Lord receiving their worship because he is God (see 4:8 where worship is to be to God only) and then before their very eyes ascending into heaven. It is a Bible doctrine that we are to worship Jesus and the omission by the NASV is a clear denial of that doctrine. [/color][/b]


Sincerely,

Walter
:-)

 2008/4/28 20:49
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Walter...

I am not certain of your intentions in this matter.

Are you out to "prove" that all other versions are flawed EXCEPT the King James Version?

Are you trying to argue that the King James Version is perfect?

Are you trying to say that the King James is not perfect, but simply a better and more faithful translation than the other TR versions and "modern" versions?

Are you trying to say that the Textus Receptus is perfect?

Are you trying to say that the Textus Receptus is a better source than the Alexandrian texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, et al?

Are you trying to say that the manner in which the Textus Receptus was translated is superior than the eclectic manner that is favored by a majority of textual scholars and experts?

Over the years, people have ventured into SI with the well-meaning intention of opening such "discussions" to reach an end that is not clearly spelled out. You see, this isn't "beating a dead horse" (as someone described these repetitious discussions in the past). In my opinion, it is more like swatting at shadows. It just seems like we never clearly understand what individuals are trying to convey or accomplish by their posts.

It is pointless to just compare verses from a TR translation with a translation taken from other sources. Why? The usual allegation is expressed in a manner that conveys a belief that the translators of versions taken from the Alexandrian text sources PURPOSELY ignored particular verses or phrases. It almost seems as if people want to believe that those translators had ulterior motives -- PURPOSELY wanting to "omit" such things that they saw in order to create a translation that supported their own doctrinal beliefs. After truly researching this matter in depth, I found that this couldn't be farther from the truth.

I personally contacted several of the translators of the NIV. I even contacted the infamous "lesbian professor" who was consulted early in the process (not for translation purposes, but for grammatical syntax BEFORE she had revealed to anyone that she was a homosexual). There wasn't any omission of verses that the translators believed should have been included. They felt that they faithfully produced a version of the Bible using the preferred eclectic method of translation -- considering the best available manuscripts. Those translators even footnoted every substantial variation in translation (something that the KJV translators also admitted, but never appeared in a printed edition).

Those NIV translators, like the ones who worked on the King James Version several hundred years earlier, admitted that they produced an imperfect translation. Why? Their answer mirrored that of the translators of the KJV: It was a work performed by flawed men.

If we are going to spend time copying, pasting and comparing various passages of Scripture, let us make it clear that those differences appeared in the sources used for the various translations. We shouldn't pretend like we know WHY there are such differences (unless you have read the notes of Erasmus, the KJV committee or the NIV committee, etc.). We need to lay the ax to the root without meandering toward laying any sort of accusations at one group or another (which I am certainly NOT saying you are guilty of).

It would be nice to have a discussion that didn't involve "why are these verses different" when we already know that they are different because they were taken from different sources. If you want to point the finger (and feel safe enough to do so), then perhaps it should be pointed at those who produced those sources many hundreds of years ago for which the translators of the NIV, KJV and even Erasmus and older scribes used.

Quote:

Please Ccchhhrrriiisss, if you or others have scriptures from the NIV or any other newer versions that equal or surpass the Doctrine of the King James, then please post them here.

There is no need for such a thing, brother. There are many, many verses that agree (doctrinally) between the NIV and the KJV -- far more than the instances in which they disagree. It would be pointless to include them because they include everything OTHER THAN those few obvious verses that are translated differently IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCES. Contrary to popular belief, the NIV includes passages that embrace the Trinity, personal holiness, essential sanctification, repentance, and even those sins of the flesh (including sexual sins and homosexuality). Thus, there is no need to defend a translation like the NIV -- because its work stands on its own merit.

My biggest fear from these sorts of discussions, brother, is that they often result in accusations. Accusations are laid at the hearts of translators, source writers, and even ancient scribes. Yet we have never met most of these men. We don't know their hearts or even the spiritual doctrines by which they lived. Some have even ventured to point the finger at versions like the NIV and call it "evil." What if they are wrong? What if it is simply a decent, well-meaning academic translation of the WORD OF GOD that simply differs from the KJV because it was taken from a different set of sources? What if there is a danger in labeling something as "evil" that is in fact portions of the true Word of God?

It is just something to think about. The Lord bless you!


_________________
Christopher

 2008/4/28 23:00Profile





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