Posted on 04/02/2003 11:56:15 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
I have no problem with honest scholarship. That's not what this is, it's sophistry.
You claim that you want a Bible that is easier to understand, yet most of the words and phrases that have been substituted have little or no meaning to most of the people for whom you claim to speak. When people see something that they don't understand, they don't try to find out what is meant, they just glaze over it. That is what is happening with the Newbibles; the message is getting lost. (and personally, I think that is what was intended)
it is more plausible to attribute the variant to the "helpful scribe" correcting a perceived inaccuracy, rather than an introduced error -- especially when one considers that in that era, attributing it to "Isaiah the prophet" meant little more than that was what scroll it would be found in. The minor prophets were not always cited, but often referred to by the major prophet their book was placed with...
Jude, you've just defeated your own argument.
Since 999 readers out of 1000 (conservative estimate) have no knowledge of the above quoted fact, how will changing the text back to that method increase understanding? If that is the reality of the issue, then the KJV reading imparts the more understandable thought.
"...then I bought a book by James White. Maybe that'll help me understand where this group is coming from."
No Wrigley, that will only familiarize you with James White's tendentious and pointless attack on those who exposed the fallacy of the Newbible agenda. He does nothing to refute the facts that are presented; instead he spins a verbose web of smoke and distraction in hope that the reader will just give up trying to sort through the matter and accept his position.
As for the 'out-dated language' issue, our language is being destroyed day by day. Just 100 years ago, no one would have considered formal english to be out-dated. I still don't because I use it every day in the preparation of legal boundary description exhibits. If I were to use the sort of diction that is commonplace on TV news programs, I would do a tremendous disservice to my clients, since those descriptions would become vague and ambiguous, and impossible to defend in a court of law. Are you really arguing for the dumbing down of our language?
Why not spend some time reading what the home-schoolers are saying. The KJV Bible is the best reader there is to put your kids at the top of the competitive heap. Some things are worth fighting for.
And Jude, the 'KJV only' line is a strawman. Nobody that I know of is making that argument.
Since Matthew 27:9 is not a quote from Zecariah attibuted to Jeremiah, but something that Jeremiah himself did say, do you have any other examples of 'lesser' prophets being cited in 'greater' prophets books as being from the greater prophets?
If you do you not, you have yet another error in the NIV (see 2Sam.21:19 cf 1Chro.20:5).
Really? Could you provide a chapter and verse?
Matthew 27:9 says,
9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10 AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER’S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME."
Now, I searched the book of Jeremiah for "thirty" and "silver," and its nowhere to be found in the book of Jeremiah.
OTOH, Zecharaiah says,
12 I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Seems to me that's a quotation of Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
As for the Goliath thing, I'm shooting from the hip, but I'm assuming Goliath wasn't an uncommon name, especially amongst a family of giants.
In post 3 you said:
The Newbible Gang will never accept the absolute truth of these arguments. They are apparently victims of 'strong delusion.'Now that's sophistry.
The problem is incrementalism. The current versions will soon be further diluted in a continuing process that started with the RSV.
The problem is indeed not incrementalism. From your arguments you would appear to say that about anything other than the KJV. And if new Greek texts further dilute the KJV then deal with it, that's life and you need to realize the KJV is only a translation. To your detriment and without any objective reason, you appear to put the KJV on a pedestal.
I predict you will continue to ignore the tough questions as others join the discussion. I've seen enough of yours and ftD's arguments to know it's a waste of my valuable time to continue this discussion. Don't ping me again to posts of this type.
I think we'd agree with the statements in post 16, other than that when it comes to honest discussion of the available texts, forget it - I've seen your style and would rather dig dirt then bang my head against a wall again with the KJV arguments.
Not trying to pick an argument, just an observation: It seems to me that we owe a lot of our English language to two sources: Chaucer, and the King James Bible. I use the KJV a lot as that is what I grew up with, and I like the flow of the language. But, I also consult other translations when I want to delve into meanings, shades of meaning, and even into the Greek and Hebrew (with aids to help me understand), in order to be absolutely sure in places where the KJV language usage is not clear. I think the KJV is a perfectly good translation, but there are others that also stand up well, some better than others.
The only thing I would say to the KJV-only crowd is that, while I understand your zeal for the KJV, too often other translations are characterized as "deliberate distortions", with no real proof. Your attitude is similar to the conspiracy theorists who are sure that some vast conspiracy is behind everything, running everything, and that only a chosen few are privileged to see the "real truth". Anyone who disagrees is either blind, or a part of the conspiracy. And with you anyone who disagrees is either blind, or an agent of Satan attempting to water down the Word. There is no room in the KJV-only world for a scholarly difference of opinion over precise translation. I think that is sad, and it gives the KJV-only crowd a certain "bug-eyed, sweaty, ranting quality" that turns most people off. Rather than engage in scholarly debate and really work on translation, they attempt to put everyone else on the defensive, all in the name of defending the truth. A noble cause, but very poor execution.
Thus from what was more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb'), there arose the designation 'Textus Receptus', or commonly received, standard text. Partly because of this catchword the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen of passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness.Sound familiar?
I have no problems with folks using the 17th century King James translation. It's when without any supporting evidence say things like:
What we are saying is that God has one Bible in the English language and that is the KJV!This is exactly what Metzger was referring to which I emphasized above.
Well said. Some post as though solid Christians haven't searched this out for themselves, and if we have and still disagree, we're under some "strong delusion." When my kids reach my age I hope all such KJV-only arguments will be a thing of the past and Christians can spend more time following the Great Commission.
WGRG: This is a lie and no lie is of the truth. Doublespeak in America's schools and churchs is at an all time high; yet the word of God is forever settled in heaven.
QX: EITHER
1) I have utterly failed to communicate
OR
2) You have failed to think this through
&/OR
3) You have fixated on some fractions of these issues and rushed off the cliff with the rest of it.
Do you REALLY believe that IF SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW OR IS NOT READING THE BIBLE AT THE TIME, THAT THEN
they do NOT REAP WHAT THEY SOW?
Do you REALLY believe that a Hindu deep in India who has never heard the Gospel and has no awareness of The Bible will NOT be held accountable for avoiding to "do unto others . . . " ???
Do you REALLY believe that a Biblically ignorant native in the Amazon jungle who jealously murders a tribal member over a coveted wild boar will not be held accountable for coveting and murder?
Do you REALLY believe that HE THAT SEEKS ME SHALL FIND ME will not operate AT ALL--0.00%--WITHOUT the written text or at least the spoken text being intimately involved from before the beginning step and at every step following?
Do you REALLY believe Holy Spirit CAN-NOT operate if the written or spoken text is too many miles away?
Do you REALLY believe that God is too limited; too supernaturally weak to reach down in the darkest Africa without a Biblical text for hundreds of miles--and save Samuel Morris?
Samuel was the son of a chief who USUALLY LOST the chronic war between his tribe and a neighboring tribe.
That meant that usually Samuel was taken captive to the enemy tribe's area and tied to a stake in a clearing and whipped and beaten until a ransom was paid.
Samuel at the time the story begins was, as I recall, around 14-16 years old. He had been beaten, I think, for 3 days and was lacking in adequate water and food. He was mostly hanging limply from the stake--not really well able to even breathe or exist very well and certainly not comfortably.
Suddenly in the middle of the night, alone in the clearing hanging limply from the stake--he hears a voice: "GET UP AND RUN." He thinks he's delusional. He ignores the voice. A 2nd time, he hears the voice: "I said, GET UP AND RUN!" He's beginning to think he's really delusional or something super strange is going on which he has no understanding of but again--given no ability or strength to even stand, and tied to the stake--he has no conception of how he could stand, much less run.
A 3rd time he hears more loudly, insistantly: "I SAID--GET UP AND RUN!" And SUDDENLY, he discovers that he has strength and his bonds are loosened sufficiently for him to be free.
He runs into the jungle. There, a LIGHT and the SAME VOICE leads him for 2-3 weeks through the jungle--to food and water--and eventually to a walled compound. THE VOICE then tells him that "IN THERE, YOU WILL LEARN OF ME."
It was a mission compound.
Samuel indeed soaked up the Word of God like the Arabian desert a once a decade rain.
He is very matter of fact; child-like and takes God's written Word at face value; applies it as it's written and expects God to do just what His Word says without a lot of complicated theological mumbo jumbo.
He tends to look up with his eyes open when he prays.
And as reported earlier, when he sets foot in a vast arena--crossing the threshhold triggers masses of the waiting people to run forward automatically confessing their sins, repenting and begging forgiveness--even though they couldn't see and had no natural awareness of Samuel even arriving yet.
Umpteen thousands were saved during Sammy's brief life. He died around 21 years old, as I recall.
I don't recall if Amy Carmichael or a similar saint made a movie out of his life. I think his life story is still in print. I think it's called SAMUEL MORRIS, THE MARCH OF FAITH or some such.
Obviously, according to your construction on reality, Samuel's life story could not have happened and the many thousands of people saved during his minnistry could not have been saved.
IF that's your conviction, then, I think you are exceedingly off base.
The problem is incrementalism. The current versions will soon be further diluted in a continuing process that started with the RSV.
In response to your ping - Its that kind of narrow mindedness that turns new believers off - Before I surrendered to Christ I would have spent at least 4 minutes trying to decipher and understand the KJV1611 before I put it down and had another beer.
The NIV....and the "good news" - at least introduced me to Christ
....and just who constitues the "newbie gang" - is there a secret handshake among the old gang
I have it but I haven't read it yet, too many other things going on, but I understand that it is one of the better defenses of the KJV.
I would consider myself KJV-only, but I'll be the first to admit that my side of the argument has had its share of shoddy scholarship. However, I don't think that invalidates the position. ;^)
Not newbie, Newbible.
The guys that are making a huge killing on producing newbible after newbible, after newbible; each guaranteed to be better that the preceding, ad infinitum.
And of course, they're all Satan's minions, doing his bidding to dilute and render the Word of God impotent and of no effect (as though mere mortals could do such a thing), and the height of perfection in translation was achieved with the King James Bible. All that have come after are but cheap and poor imitations of the one true bible, the KJV.
Are you serious??? Do you have special knowledge as to the hearts and intent of every last scholar who has ever studied the original texts and attempted to translate them? You set yourself up as Judge, Keeper of the Flame, and Defender of the Book. You are right and everyone else is wrong if they don't agree. Talk about strong delusion!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.