Posted on 08/01/2003 11:51:43 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
At great length, I explained to them that the KJV, NIV, and NASB all said the same thing, just in slightly different words.
This statement is false. They do not all say the same thing with different words.
jude24 is absolutely correct. You KJV-only types place a stumbling block in the path of believers who could use completely reliable newer translation. Shame on you.
Since it looks like you are not in a frame of mind to discuss the issue rationally I will bid you good night.
There are different kinds of legalism besides "KJV legalism."
I don't think we've interacted enough for you to know what "type" I am. When you calm down and want to talk about it ping me.
I agree....
My only point is to show that there are heretics that embrace the KJV, while the KJV-legalists claim that it is the modern translations that are the choices of heretics.
Since I am not a "KJV-legalist" it would not be fair for me to give their arguments since I might misconstrue something.
Instead I will tell you my stance on the subject. I hold to the KJV because I believe it is a faithful translation of the traditional Greek text as used throughout the Church's history. The Textus Receptus is the Greek text of the Reformation. It, in turn, was made in reliance upon the Byzantine Text readings (this may be an oversimplification, but what they hey, we're a message board not a theological journal) which were the majority text in the ancient churches.
I don't like Westcott and Hort based texts because it seems to me that in holding to them you would have to have a position that essentially says that God's word was lost to the church for at least 250-300 years and most likely lost for as long as 1,000 years. Westcott and Hort based their Greek text upon the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two texts came out of Alexandria and are notoriously untrustworthy.
I also don't trust the newer Greek text because of the people who made it. Westcott and Hort said that they were setting out to dethrone the TR. Therefore they rejected it, and most Byzantine readings, out of hand when they created their text.
I can go on, but this is probably enough to give you the gist of my position.
Have a great night, and I pray that Church goes well for you tomorrow.
Oh, the ones on this board? If not, then do you think it is right for you to vent at them?
I think I answered this in my #28 which I pinged you to. If not then please let me know where I need to clarify my position. Thanks.
Are they ipso facto untrustworthy because they came out of Alexandria?
(That is the argument of Riplinger and Ruckman, whom I trust less than Hillary Clinton....)
FTD and his cabal of KJV-legalists use the same, tired arguments that deceived me 8 years ago.
If you are not one of his number, I apologize. Your initial statement to me caused me to conclude otherwise.
I have no problem with the KJV, as far as it goes. It's a remarkably good translation. My quarrel is with those who would force Christians to use the KJV even when they struggle to understand it. I object to the slander of godly men by the KJV-legalist cabal. The historical revisionism rampant in the KJV-legalist position blows my mind.
I don't like Westcott and Hort based texts because it seems to me that in holding to them you would have to have a position that essentially says that God's word was lost to the church for at least 250-300 years and most likely lost for as long as 1,000 years.
This is simply fallacious. The church was dispersed geographically, beginning with the first persecution in Jerusalem. God actually used this dispersion to preserve the text. No single group was ever in charge of all the manuscripts. Each local congregation had copies of the manuscripts. Realize that these are really fragile and were copied by hand. Manuscripts stored in dry places, like Alexandria, survived longer. Not only were the NT manuscripts copied into to the original Greek, they were translated into both Syriac and Latin. None of these were "lost to the church," they were actively used all along. Quotes from the early "Church Fathers" show this. All these features lead to manuscript families that show lineages. We have this vast abundance of manuscripts that actually gives us what we scientists call "oversampling". The variations can be traced by geography and the original wording deduced with great certainty. Most variants are simple things like changing nouns to pronouns. There are the usual variants that one would expect from copying - words inserted, repeated, or deleted. Often the scribe used wording from a familiar parallel passage. All this is easily deduced from the large number of manuscripts. No doctrine is compromised by these variants. The ESV. NAS, NIV, and KJV are reliable copies. A believer can be edified by any that he/she reads and studies.
I have not read anything by Riplinger or Ruckman so I can't comment on their arguments. However on Ruckman I can tell you that the seminary I attend is in Pensacola where Ruckman has his base and their is no love lost between my school and Ruckman.
I am basing my argument on what I've read from Edward F. Hills (a respectable Reformed scholar) and Theodore Letis.
Both sides of this argument should have quarrels with those who slander godly men, whether they stand by the KJV or not.
Also, I am aware that my side is a little free with the facts for which I apologize. The things I present I try to make sure of first.
Like I said, those were my opinions.
The church was dispersed geographically, beginning with the first persecution in Jerusalem. God actually used this dispersion to preserve the text. No single group was ever in charge of all the manuscripts.
I don't think I ever mentioned or even thought that a single group of people was ever in charge of all the manuscripts. In Old Testament times God had the Levitical priesthood. Those men were in charge of keeping the Old Testament. They, and the scribes that attached themselves to the Levites, faithfully preserved the Old Testament text.
Fast forward to New Testament times. The Christian church does not have an institutional priesthood like the Jewish people did. However, God made every believer a priest. It was the believers which God preserved His text through.
Each local congregation had copies of the manuscripts.
Exactly, and it is amazing that on three continents, Europe, Africa, and Asia, the majority of those manuscripts were Byzantine in type.
Realize that these are really fragile and were copied by hand. Manuscripts stored in dry places, like Alexandria, survived longer.
I don't think Alexandria is any drier than Antioch or the rest of the Holy Lands. Vaticanus was found in the basement of the Vatican, I don't trust the RCC and it's manuscript evidence especially after the Isidoran(Sp?) Decretals and the Donation of Constantine fiascoes. Sinaiticus was found in a trash can of an Orthodox church.
To me those don't sound like very reliable places to find the text upon which to base a whole new generation of Bibles.
Not only were the NT manuscripts copied into to the original Greek, they were translated into both Syriac and Latin.
True, and the oldest, the Peshitta, has Byzantine readings.
None of these were "lost to the church," they were actively used all along.
I said that I didn't believe that God's Word had ever been lost to His people.
Quotes from the early "Church Fathers" show this. All these features lead to manuscript families that show lineages. We have this vast abundance of manuscripts that actually gives us what we scientists call "oversampling". The variations can be traced by geography and the original wording deduced with great certainty. Most variants are simple things like changing nouns to pronouns. There are the usual variants that one would expect from copying - words inserted, repeated, or deleted. Often the scribe used wording from a familiar parallel passage.
Since I've never compared the variants I will take your word that most of them are relatively benign. But, that still leaves a minority that are not so benign, by your own admission.
All this is easily deduced from the large number of manuscripts. No doctrine is compromised by these variants. The ESV. NAS, NIV, and KJV are reliable copies. A believer can be edified by any that he/she reads and studies.
NO doctrine is compromised in Westcott and Hort's text?
Thanks drsteve, I appreciate that very much.
May your tribe increase too!
And yours as well. ;^)
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.