Posted on 01/24/2003 10:23:51 AM PST by Commander8
QUESTION: Do Christians and Preachers who use other bibles "hate God."
ANSWER: No, although some may abhor the thought of being in subjection to "a Book."
(Excerpt) Read more at chick.com ...
The Received Text has been shown to be the one that glorifies God, not the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort.
That is why MacAruther ran back to the New King James.
The argument that defends the Byzantine tradition, by appealing to the fact that most manuscripts in the Greek New Testament attest the Byzantine, is logically and historically weak. It is not a truism that a majority of manuscripts necessarily preserve the best text.
No, King James Only defender defends Manuscripts on that basis (that is the view of the Majority School of Hodge and Pickering)
We hold that the best reading (one that glorifies God and is consistent with the Scriptures is the right reading)
Thus, 1Jn.5:7, even though in very few Greek manuscripts is the correct reading.
The argument that defends the Byzantine text by appealing to the providence of God is theologically false. The determination of the best variant in an individual case is not a theological issue alone, but primarily a textual issue.
So, the argument is that while God gave us perfect Originals, He did not think enough of them to preserve them in a perfect state.
I guess those words were really not that all important!
Christ said we live by every word that precedeth from the mouth of God (Matt.4:4)
Moreover, if God couldn't preserve His words, what makes you think we have the correct Books?
He kept the right books but couldn't preserve the words of those Books?
Textual arguments that depend on adopting the "textus receptus" and then comparing it to other text types are guilty of bias. To argue that because a modern version does not include something that's included in the TR, or adds something which the TR does not add, is to argue that the modern versions and their translators are guilty of adding to or subtracting from the true text.
LOL!
They do not know what the 'true text' is!
Here is a little known secret of how the 'scientific' modern textual criticism is.
Many of the readings they decide on they vote on! (See Metzgers, A Textual Commentary).
Now, that is real objective science there!
This is the difference between translators of the 16th-17th centuries and now.
Luther, Tyndale, the Geneva Translators and the King James translators actually believed they were translating the words of God.
Modern translators think they are reconstructing 'the missing text'
Ofcourse, the Papyri evidence constantly goes against the critical text and that is why Nestles (and the NASB) had to return to many Receptus readings.
This, after years of telling everyone they had true scholars' bible.
It could be equally true that those who translated the TR were the ones who actually deleted or added. The charge that the non-Byzantine text types are theologically in error is wrong. This was evidenced earlier in our lengthy letter.There is no necessary connection between the adoption of the Byzantine text/King James Version and the inspiration of Scripture. There are equally godly, scholarly men on both sides of this issue who all strongly embrace the historic, orthodox understanding of the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures.
Untrue.
The earlier translators (as already noted) believed that the Greek text they had was pure and thus, the word of God.
The modern translators believe in no such thing.
They reject Dean Burgeon (not a King James Only defender, but a TR guy) because of his view that God actually preserved His words.
Moreover, all one need do is look at the history of modern translations and the fruit they have borne since the 19th century and the fruit of the King James to see which Book God has honored and which He has rejected.
The King James issue is about final authority and the attempts of the 'scholars' to gain control of the average believer so he (the scholar') cannot be held accountable for what he teaches.(1Jn.4:1)
Thus, the final appeal to the 'Greek and Hebew' no different then the Roman priests appealing to the unknown Latin.
Many of the readings they decide on they vote on! (See Metzgers, A Textual Commentary).
Now, that is real objective science there!
This is the difference between translators of the 16th-17th centuries and now.
Luther, Tyndale, the Geneva Translators and the King James translators actually believed they were translating the words of God.
Modern translators think they are reconstructing 'the missing text'
"Looking Up.....NOW!"
Maranatha!
Romans 10:17..................says it all!!!
Maranatha!
The Truth of DOCTRINE..........NOT to be laid aside for 'lukewarm' social gatherings.
Maranatha!.......................BTTT
Is that right?
I think Burgon and Hills stand up pretty well as 'scholars'.
However, as a member of the church, the body of Christ, we are commanded to check these things out and not be passive.
I have read the works of the Critical school and the works of the King James School.
It comes down to one final issue, could God perserve His words or not?
The Critical school doesn't think so and moreover doesn't even think they are important!
The King James school thinks that if the Books were important enough to perserve and God thought the words important enough to put perfectly in the now long gone Originals, then God would certainly keep them for His people to read!
And your allegations and arrogance have done nothing but divide the Church. Considering that the preponderance of the translations are identical - 99+% so - the constant stirring that you and your compatriots engage in is simply sowing seeds of doubt in the immature, and division amongst the more mature. To what end? What have you achieved through your wranglings? Bragging rights over being adherent to the "perfect" version of the Bible? So what? You are not glorifying God with your assertions (most of which I reject), but rather, you are bringing derision from those on the outside that we would win to Christ to the glory of God. Nice work!
What a joke!
You bring different versions into the Church, that read differently and then talk about the King James people being divisive.
Moreover, how much 'leaven' do you think it takes to corrupt a Bible?
Check out Mark 1:2 and tell me if the first quotation is from the Book of Isaiah or Malachi?
Tell me from 2Sam.21:19 who killed Goliath?
Even though the New Versions have the correct reading (Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath)1Chro.20:5, they put in the incorrect reading in 2Sam.21:19 making the Bible a liar!
Tell me if you can be redeemed without the Blood as it says in Col.1:14?
Shall I go on?
The 'New' bibles are nothing but a hodge-podge of corrupt readings, with just enough correct readings in them to give the facade of being bibles.
Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said. We will not walk therein (Jer.6:16)
Your# 10)..............Amen!!!
Romans 10:17..................says it all!!!
Maranatha!
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.