Elkin M. Kaufman wrote:Murray's problem is he is too smart he tkinks [sic] he knows more than God
Perhaps MurrayA should "dumb down" all that he posts?
IMO, that would be a definite loss.
The argument cares very much about the preservation of the "exact words" of scripture. (This is actually ironic, given this was the goal of Dr Aland's life work.)
To this end, the article describes the variation between the TR and the NA & UBS texts with phrases like "differ widely", "differ significantly", etc.
My question is: Which doctrines of the church hinge on these variations? In other words, "What doctrines are supported by the Textus Recuptus, but disapproved by the Nestle-Aland text?" For that matter, which doctrines rely only on the books whose presence in the canon is questioned by Dr Aland?
I would argue that any doctrine that meets the above criteria is weak, and is not adequately supported by scripture.
PS: In one of the quotes of Dr Aland on p.24-25, that is intended to shoot him down, he actually describes how through his work he is able to see the providence of God by the Holy Spirit working through the men who copied the scriptures. Yet because this doesn't mesh with the authors "infallible" concept, Dr Aland has "pernicious views of the unreliablity of Bibles".
You claim that you are aware of the Granville Sharp Rule. OK, then. Why do you claim that modern versions undermine the Deity of Christ?Let's look at the KJV of 2 Peter 1:1"...through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Now the same text in NASB (1995)""...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
NIV:"...through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."
Now which ones are the clearest on the Deity of Christ? Surely the latter two, precisely because of the application of the Granville Sharp Rule! This is just one illustration of many of how knowledge of Greek has improved since the days of the KJV translators, and why we should incorporate these insights into newer versions.
One other thing: you allege that I am angry. While I get very frustrated with the likes of JD, who comes over as exceptionally dense, I am not angry. But I do get upset with KJV-only people who are so hidebound that any reasoning or factual material is lost on them.
I am not being sarcastic, Murray. I hesitated to enter this discussion. I intentionally addressed my thoughts to Bernard to avoid you. I often don't post on SA threads when I see that you are involved because your words lead me to believe that you are a very angry, angry man. That's not intended as an insult, purely an observation. I may be completely wrong but that's how you present yourself. You probably are a vast source of knowledge about many things but unless knowledge is tempered with humility, it tends to put people off.
My remarks about "fools rush in..." were directed primarily to the issue of textual criticism, a study for those with knowledge of manuscripts and textual patterns and types. I do not claim to be any expert on these matters, but I continue my reading on the issue.
Meanwhile, what has appalled me has been the utter dogmatism by KJV-only people on this board when it comes to textual issues. Time and again there is the assertion that newer version are based on two (corrupt) manuscripts - Codices Aleph and B. This is emphatically NOT the case: there are over 100 papyrus manuscripts and fragments; there is a whole array of early codices besides Aleph and B; then there are the miniscules - literally thousands of them. And that is just the Greek manuscripts, let alone the ancient versions. And textual editors take into account ALL this evidence, not merely some part of it to suit a preconceived agenda.
See further my website,www.adamthwaite.com.au, and follow the link to Textual Criticism.
I will gladly join you brother for a ball game in your garden!
Murray A. I note your comments re: TBS. What is your opinion on their article below. Have a read and let us know.http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/aland.pdf
The Doctrinal Views of DR KURT ALAND,Textual Critic 'At present, the NIV andthe ESV are sweepingevangelical churches in theUnited States and Britain. Thus,modern churchgoers are being profoundlyinfluenced by Aland’s Greek Text,and so also by his 'peculiar' views of thetext'
I Timothy 3: 16 AV
I was invited to a bible (book indoctrinating study) by the Jw's and was offered their bible version as a gift. Providentially God provided instead a 30 year old unopened dusty AV in my wife's bottom draw (wife's christening gift). God had me prepared but not with any modern version. Why...
The scripture above was 'the' scripture that the Holy Spirit used to bring me to my knees despite all the labours of satan's deceitful workers (watchtower society)
I had no idea about the Granvile Sharp rule but KNOW how the Lord opened my eyes to that anti-trinitarian cult with that one scripture rejected by the majority of modern versions including the New World translation
I'll keep my AV
In fact, I get the impression that everyone who doesn't agree with whatever your position is on a given subject is a fool. I apologize for daring to interfere with your brilliance. (I think this is the point where you are supposed to declare that you are no longer willing to continue a discussion with an obvious intellectual and spiritual midget, take your ball and go home).
I humbly bow to your overwhelming, superior intellect, MurrayA. I'll go now and try to drink from the deep well of knowledge & wisdom at the MurrayA website. Maybe in the future I can do better.
On 1. In the words of our Lord, "Do you say this on your own initiative, or are you simply repeating what you have heard from others?" (John 18:34) How much do you know of textual criticism yourself? Or are you simply repeating what have read from sources such as the TBS? (a highly unreliable source on such matters). Then on translational issues: for example, what do you know of the Granville Sharp rule as applied to Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:2? If you did you would know that modern versions done by faithful scholarship is stronger on the Deity of Christ in these texts than is the KJV.
On 2. What do you make of Heb.7:18; Psa.68:13; Isa.43:13; 1 Cor.5:3-5, to mention a few? There is an exercise for you: do this WITHOUT consulting a dictionary!
Not to put too fine a point on it, as the old adage has it, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". KJV-only folks are a prime example.
kenny wrote:Why is it that the time tested, trustworthy KJV has suddenly become incomprehensible?
RSV Preface wrote:The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that theymay discern and understand God's Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have chnaged or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in languarge that is direct and plan and meaningful to people today.
RSV Preface wrote:Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.
"My first impression though, is why not have many English translations? Why shouldn't every Christian strive to learn Hebrew and Greek and create their own translation."
But isn't that exactly what we currently have? Isn't that what is currently causing so many of the problems & divisions Christians argue about?
Many people like to blame the Bible text/translation confusion today on the so-called 'King James only' folks. The fact is, when the newer translations of the Bible first began popping up, they quickly faded from use for the most part because Christians who tried to read and study them soon realized that they were: #1, based on a textual base that denigrated the deity of the Saviour and #2, were no easier to comprehend than the AV.
This was all before the invention of modern mass communication and well funded marketing techniques. Today, Bible translations make big money. We have a major new translation produced by some 'Christian' publishing house at least every year and usually it's translated -if they will list the translators- by people who are of a questionable (at best) theological background. What is gained?
Why is it that the time tested, trustworthy KJV has suddenly become incomprehensible?
MurrayA wrote:Where is everyone?Gone away for the Easter weekend?
Elkin M. Kaufman wrote:Bernard it is possible that I misjudged you If I did i'm sorry but my salvation rests in a person and not in a bible version.
Wayneuk wrote:The basic question is why do we need (have) so many different English translations today? Why not JUST the ONE new translation.
The latter I find curious, to say the least, since almost all the KJV translators were staunch Calvinists (with the probable exception of Bancroft and Andrewes). Certainly Miles Smith, the author of the preface, "Translators to the Reader", was a strict Calvinist, as were Laurence Chaderton, George Abbott, and John Reynolds, to name a few others.
Whether these modern distortions of the KJV, and pressing it into the service of modern agendas, are due to the archaic language of the KJV, or the obscurity of expression at times I'm not sure.
MurrayA wrote:Where is everyone?Gone away for the Easter weekend?Lost in the Northern Hemisphere snow this winter?I don't think there has ever been such a slow period since I have been a contributor.
Mike wrote:Wondered that myself. Some of the debate team banned, maybe? Who knows?
MurrayA wrote:Perhaps old JD has at last been disciplined for just too many removed posts? And too many heresies?And as for our friend from LV, I lost count of the posts he began, insultingly, with "Ha". Perhaps he too has been removed from the board. But don't get your hopes up!
The answer seems quite obvious to me:Both JD and "our friend from LV" have been secretly raptured leaving all of us heathen behind.
Not true. Compare all the KJB's and you'll find a variety of differences in spelling.
I hope you don't mind my addressing my comment to you on this subject.
The survey question asks what version of the Bible do you use? Which is a simple honest inquiry. But in reading through comments on this thread and others I'm considering another question, 'What version of the Bible have you been abused by?'
In my earlier days as a believer I passed through the Charismatic Movement and found it interesting at the time that many of the Chrismatic teachers perferred the King James Version and from their teaching it seemed to me they chose to because the difficulty with the KJV made it ripe to abuse and twist to foist their false teaching on others.
And today I'm considering that others abuse and use the KJV to force people to bow down to their own personal preferences, to put us into bondage (aka King James Onlyism).
Have you noticed anything like this?
By the way I feel I must note there are thankfully many faithful preachers who use the King James to preach Jesus Christ and proclaim clearly who He is, what He has done for us, who He makes us to be in Him at new birth and encourage us in our faith. I am not speaking of them in my observations here.
And as for our friend from LV, I lost count of the posts he began, insultingly, with "Ha". Perhaps he too has been removed from the board. But don't get your hopes up!
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 more | last
