The Niv Challenge

[EdJones]

THE NIV CHALLENGE


Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"



Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16

[NSMinistries]

EdJones:
THE NIV CHALLENGE


Try Answering These From Your NIV

By Rex L. Cobb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTRUCTIONS:

Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.

Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).


Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."


According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?


According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?


According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?


In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.


In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________


According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?


According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?


In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?


In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?


In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?


According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?


In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?


John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?


What happened each year as told in John 5:4?


In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?


In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?


What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?


Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.


Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?


Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.


First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?


In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?


Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?


Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"



Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it's much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg.

(Ed. These are all missing in the NIV.) So now what do you think of your "accurate, easy to understand, up to date Bible"?

If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible.

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"
Gal. 4:16 (not from footnotes but from the text). What good can come of this thread...

[Jaltus]

Um, all of those verses listed are in fact ADDED by the KJV, not deleted from the NIV.

Why is it that KJVO people never argue, they only post silly things like this and expect the rest of us to run scared?

What does this mean:

Psalm 88:13 But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.

Sure looks like heresy to me!

[GrayPilgrim]

:rofl:

[GrayPilgrim]

NSMinistries:
What good can come of this thread...

:huh: I looked at an NIV for the first time in years?

[Ric]

:spam: :spam: :spam: :spam:

[kiwimac]

Nope,

This is even more stupid than the man who lay down on his bed after it was on fire!

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

Good grief, another KJVO with ridiculous question-begging. Not only are these verses added by the so-called Textus Receptus, but all the allegedly missing doctrines are taught elsewhere in the selfsame NIV.

I suggest reading James White's book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Bethany House, 1995. See a review here (http://www.tektonics.org/JW.KJOC_1556615752.html). It would be most helpful for informing people of the issues so they can counteract the KJVO evangelists. In fact, the KJVOers themselves should read it to follow Proverbs 18:17:
He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

[Socrates]

Here's a short list showing that the KJV is undoubtedly totally corrupt because it leaves out certain doctrines, while the NIV has them all. It must be down to that rotten Papist Erasmus who produced the Textus Receptus.


John 14:14, the KJV omits Greek word me, otherwise the translation would be ‘You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it’, i.e. prayer can be offered to Christ, an indication of His deity, as the NIV affirms but the KJV leaves out. Significantly, the JWs claim to base their New World Perversion on the Alexandrian Text, but not here!

Jude 25: KJV omits the phrases ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages’ (NIV). Of course, this conclusively shows that the Byzantine copyists that largely resulted in the so-called Textus Receptus[/i] were corrupting the text to get rid of references to Christ as mediator ...

1 Peter 3:15, the key ‘apologetics’ verse. The TR says: ‘But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts’; while the Alexandrian says: ‘But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.’ The Alexandrian text directly teaches the Deity of Christ because Peter is referring to texts like Isaiah 5:16 and 8:13 that command that we sanctify the Lord (YHVH) of Hosts and ‘God that is holy’, but Peter applies this to Christ as Lord. All this is lost in the Byzantine text followed by the KJV, but there are no conspiratorial attacks by NIV-only people …. This is mainly because there was no conspiracy, but just the usual tendency in the Byzantine family to harmonize more directly with the OT.

Acts 16:7: ‘spirit of Jesus’ (Alexandrian), while the TR lacks the words ‘of Jesus’. While the Alexandrian text says that Jesus has the authority to send the Holy spirit, which indicates His deity, Byzantine texts lacks this.

John 1:18: Alexandrian calls Jesus ho monogenes theos(unique/ ‘only begotten’ God), while the Byzantine family harmonizes the text to the far more frequent term ho monogones huios = ‘only begotten Son’.

Romans 8:28: The corrupt KJV, based on the TR, says, ‘And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.’ But the Alexandrian has extra words in the Greek ho theos = [the] God, so it makes it clear that things are not working out by themselves, but that God is the one working them out: ‘We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.’

Also, to show that the KJV translators were closet Arians, their translation of Titus 2:13 (and similarly 2 Peter 1:1) is close to the New World Perversion: "of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", which splits God and Jesus. But the NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ", a crystal clear statement of the Deity of Christ.

Of course, the latter was quite innocent, and the modern translations have the benefit of Granville Sharp's studies. But imagine if all the above were the other way round, i.e. the KJV had the "better" theology -- wouldn't the accusations fly from the KJVO camp!

[EdJones]

02-20-2003 @ 10:40 AM
Socrates:



I suggest reading James White's book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Bethany House, 1995.


Thanks, I have his book and have read it. Here is info on The James White Controversy (http://www.ekkcom.com/white1.htm)

[Socrates]

I wrote:

I suggest reading James White's book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Bethany House, 1995.EdJones, our resident KJVO, replied (if you can call it a reply):

Thanks, I have his book and have read it. Here is info on The James White ControversySure doesn't look like it. I've read him, Carson's book on the same lines, as well as the KJVO books by Waite, who's full of errors and slanders against the NIV (although not as crass as yours), and that loopy Riplinger harridan you trust so much.

When you have something of substance as opposed to question-begging, conspiracy theories and juvenile cartoons, please wake us all up.

[kiwimac]

Unlikely as it seems, I agree with socrates!


Kiwimac

[EdJones]

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were
verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been
providentially preserved through the ages."







Isaiah 66
1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

[GrayPilgrim]

02-24-2003 @ 08:40 PM
EdJones:



Thanks, I have his book and have read it. Here is info on The James White Controversy (http://www.ekkcom.com/white1.htm)

Please refrain from the ad hominem cartoons as they are not condusive for debate.

02-25-2003 @ 10:46 AM
EdJones:

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were
verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been
providentially preserved through the ages."




Your use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority on both of these posts fails to make an argument. I have never heard of this Burgon guy, but I am sorry it is silly to say that there are no text-critical errors in the Bible. The majority texts which KJVO appeal to happen to be text families and not one individual text itself, but is a family of texts that has differances in it.

GP

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

02-25-2003 @ 10:46 AM
EdJones:

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were
verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been
providentially preserved through the ages."



And in the 1611 forward to the KJV, the translators stated the following in their note to the readers:

“Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God.”

On page 8 the King James translators talk about making new translations. They ask, “Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?” Then they say, “That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with.”

“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

For more information click here. (http://www.communitybaptistchurch.com/Library/kjv_translators.html)

[drdeutsch]

If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.

Dr. Deutsch

[EdJones]

The Anti King James Version Conspiracy (http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/white.htm)

A PUBLIC SPANKING FOR JAMES WHITE! By Cecil J. Carter

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

02-25-2003 @ 11:08 AM
drdeutsch:

If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.

Dr. Deutsch

Here (http://aomin.org/NABVR.html) is a detailed critique White made of Riblinger's book.

If it were not such a devisive subject, it would be funny. :bawl:

[Socrates]

EdJones

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."
Gray Pilgrim responded:

Your use of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority on both of these posts fails to make an argument. I have never heard of this Burgon guy, but I am sorry it is silly to say that there are no text-critical errors in the Bible. Dean John Burgon was a textual scholar of the 19th century who strongly opposed Westcott and Hort. But I strongly question the accuracy of EdJones' citings. First of all, KJVO literature is notoriously unreliable, and second, Burgon was by no means as stupid as that. But Burgon was not KJV-only, and did not believe the TR was infallible, since it actually a poor compilation of a few Byzantine MSS, and got the last few verses of Revelation by back-translating from the Vulgate. He noted a textual variant at Mt. 10:8 —
‘For, in not a few particulars, the “Textus Receptus” does call for revision, certainly …’GP continues:

The majority texts which KJVO appeal to happen to be text families and not one individual text itself, but is a family of texts that has differances in it.'That's a good point. The KJVO appeal to perfect divine preservation begs the question of how this alleged preservation occurred. They simply assert that the TR is how God preserved the NT, but overlook that it was compiled from a number of different manuscripts, none of which was identical to the TR. So evidently, under their "reasoning", God had not preserved a text for over a millennium until Erasmus produced the TR. Actually, Erasmus was a Roman Catholic who opposed Luther (a little ad hominem to show the KJVOs that their favorite tactic can rebound), and used textual criticism to produce the TR!

DrDeutsch:
If I remember correctly, Riplinger's book was about 800 pages long (or was it 700?). Anyway, James White had to read the whole thing in less than a week so that he could debate her on the radio. He found over 600 (or was it 700?) errors in her book, including misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and other information obviously twisted to her side of the argument. I have the debate - which took place on radio - in MP3 format if you want to hear it.Sounds interesting. Also, White's detailed rebuttal of Riplinger's trash is on his website at http://www.aomin.org/NABVR.html (long!).

[EdJones]

Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.

[Socrates]

EdJones shows his true colors:
Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. RuckmanIn case some people on TW aren't aware, Ruckman believes that God re-inspired the KJV (and I guess the 1769 revision which Ed undoubtedly uses), so that it supersedes the original languages. Yes, Ruckman declares that the KJV English should be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek :dunce:! More moderate KJVOs like David Waite even call Ruckmanism a "heresy".
This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.I wonder how many times Ruckman resorted to argumentum ad hominem, his favorite tactic (and anti-intellectual demagoguery comes a close second :rant:). See White's Response to Peter Ruckman's earlier critique (http://www.aomin.org/ResponseToRuckman.html) and their long(!) correspondence (http://www.aomin.org/ruckcor.html).:bonk:

PS: Oh Ed, stop hiding those KJV arguments in that juvenile graphic in Post# 24024 — lay them out so we can see them properly! Or else I'll assume that you don't think they are worthy of being clear.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

02-25-2003 @ 11:35 AM
EdJones:

Scholarship Only Controversy by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book.


So what? Assuming Dr. Ruckman's comments are factual (I would love to see some "examples" of these so called lies), all you are doing is poisoning the well.

It would be nice if you could provide some actual reasons for your KJVO position. Question begging, ad hominem, and well poisoning IMHO seem to be the forte of KJVO arguments. So far, you have done nothing to convince me otherwise.

[GrayPilgrim]

I noticed in your scrolling list on post #24024 that you say in the NIV & NAS omited "but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" to finsih the quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3. But here is where a little textual criticism comes into play:

NA27 (no relation to W&H) says look at the parallel passages (Mt 4:1-11 & Mark 1:12), it also says that some mss ADD this longer quotation, those being
A (d) Θ Ψ (0102) f (=1, 118, 131, 209, 1582 et al and 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709 et al) 33 Maj the entire Latin tradition, Syriac (Peshita & Harklensis) bohairic (5 or more)

These fall within the Byzantine or Western Families which are known for their harmonization and expanding of the text. Although Θ is Caesarean.

However these text follow the text in NA27, NIV, ESV, NAS...
א B L W 1241 a few syriac (Sinaticus [it and Curetonianus are the earliest Syriac translations), Sahidic (2 or MSS more supoprt this reading) bohairic (5 or more)

This is squarely in the Alexandrian tradition.

So it appears that it is a toss up wether it belongs or not. I would follow NA27 , NIV, NAS, ESV for the fact that it is the shorter reading and the words are still in Matthew so it is not lost. Parallel passages often have differences, so that the author can make their point, it is in these differences that we can understand the point, whereas it appears you would rather us go back to a Diatesseron approach.

Jaltus, If you can look over this for me I'd appreciate it.

GP

[Jaltus]

Dean Burgon did not believe in the TR, he believed in the MT.

This can be found in his book The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, p. 5, where he makes the break with the TR and says he is advocating the MT.

Hence, he is NOT a backer of the KJV as it is based on the TR and not on the MT. He thought the TR was invalid!

He also disavows the TR in The Revision Revised, p. 21 n.2.

It sure seems like someone needs to check their sources.

Dean Burgon was a backer of the Majority Text Type, not the KJV. In fact, he would not even be allowed to be a member of the "dean Burgon Society" since he disallows the TR.

Sorry, Ed old boy, but you need to get your facts straight.

[Jaltus]

Θ is not Caesarean since there is no such thing, it is actually a sub-family of the Byzantine tradition, closely related to family 13 and less closely related to family 1 (though they are probably "proto-Byzantine" rather than just Byzantine).

The first option has only Western and Byzantine backing, whereas the 2nd option has all three traditions (W is a strange mix of Western and Byzantine, though generally considered Western in the gospels).

To be honest, this is a closely balanced issue, and I would err on the side of leaving it out, for it was likely left out and the scribes put it in to harmonize.

[GrayPilgrim]

02-25-2003 @ 04:02 PM
Jaltus:

Θ is not Caesarean since there is no such thing, it is actually a sub-family of the Byzantine tradition, closely related to family 13 and less closely related to family 1 (though they are probably "proto-Byzantine" rather than just Byzantine).

The first option has only Western and Byzantine backing, whereas the 2nd option has all three traditions (W is a strange mix of Western and Byzantine, though generally considered Western in the gospels).

To be honest, this is a closely balanced issue, and I would err on the side of leaving it out, for it was likely left out and the scribes put it in to harmonize.

I figured I would goof somewhere. I was using this photocopy that Grudem left in his Bible that he gave me, it has the Qoren OT and UBS2 in it, which listed a Caesarean family.

GP

[Jaltus]

Yeah, I could tell you were going on old info. Most "C" family were either Western or Byzantine, but so early or exceptional that they did not seem to fit either text type.

[studyhound]

You know these Kjvo make it hard for me to just pick up a Kjv and take it to church read it with out some one thinking I one. :rant: :rant:

I read it thropugh and enjoyed it but I also read throught the niv and saw the same GOD, and saw the same Jesus, though I like other verisions better than the Niv I stil have it on my self and refer to it when I am studying.

[John Reece]

I was using this photocopy that Grudem left in his Bible that he gave me
Grudem must like to give away books to special friends.

I have a pre-publication copy of his doctoral dissertation (submitted to the University of Cambridge for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 9 November 1976) that is bound in a plain brown cover (looks like an old-fashioned grocery bag) on the spine of which he hand-printed:

THE GIFT OF PROPHECY
WAYNE GRUDEM

Inside the cover there is this hand-written inscription:

To Jerry from Wayne
July, 1978

το πνευμα μη σβενντε,
προφητειας μη εξουθενειτε
παντα δε δοκιμαζετε, το καλον κατεχετε,
απο παντος ειδους πονηρον απεχεσθε.



'Reminds one of how special friends can be. The "Jerry" [Daley] who gave me the book is rather special, and not just as a friend.

Edited re "doctrinal" thesis - :doh:

One of the fringe benefits of old age is having an excuse for mental lapses.

[djconklin]

02-24-2003 @ 07:40 PM
EdJones:
Thanks, I have his book and have read it. Here is info on The James White Controversy (http://www.ekkcom.com/white1.htm)

If White's book really was "LEGALLY ACTIONABLE LIES" then why doesn't she take him to court. As they say: "Put up or shut up."

She could even get help from Ruckman: "This critique of James White's book The King James Only Controversy exposes him for the liar that he is, proving he lied 79 times in his book."

[EdJones]

God is supernatural, is He not? Did He have something to do with The King James Bible or nothing to do with it? Was God in any of it or completely divorced from it? Do you know for sure, when God moves or leads anyone to do anything? Has God led the modern translators supernaturally in correcting the KJB? Has He even led them influentially to correct the KJB? What is your proof or basis for saying so? Has God led you supernaturally to question the authority of the Authorized Version?

Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. -- 2 Tim. 3:7

[Solly]

EXPLOSIVED, WELCOME TO TWEB!!

[John Reece]

Did I miss it, or has no one mentioned D. A. Carson's excellent book on the subject?

The King James Version Debate - I think that's the title, but if not, cut me some slack - I'm going by memory, which isn't as good as it used to be.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:

God is supernatural, is He not?
Yes He is.

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Did He have something to do with The King James Bible or nothing to do with it?

Of course He had something to with the KJV as well as all other translataions (as well as all other events in creation as He is the creator :doh:.) Really vaugue question there Ed.

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Was God in any of it or completely divorced from it?

God is soverign, of course He was "in" it. He is "in" everything. (you know being omnipresent and all that)

Yet another really vaugue question.

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Do you know for sure, when God moves or leads anyone to do anything?

Do you?

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Has God led the modern translators supernaturally in correcting the KJB?

What a loaded question. To my knowledge, no modern translation was motivated by an atempt to "correct" the KJV. I like the KJV, I also like the NASB. Modern translation (like the KJV) use original language manuscripts. Although modern translators have access to older (and IMHO more reliable) manuscripts than that KJV translators did.

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Has He even led them influentially to correct the KJB?

Straw man. The purpose of modern translation is not to "correct the KJB". I have never heard anyone say that Modern translations are inspired. I only claim, that the original autographs are inspired. Who, besides KJV only people claim that a translation is inspire?

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:What is your proof or basis for saying so?

Never said it, never will.

Where is your proof that the KJV translators were inspired?

03-13-2003 @ 09:37 AM
EdJones:Has God led you supernaturally to question the authority of the Authorized Version?

I have not been led supernatuallyto assume that any translation is inspired.

Has God led you supernatually to accept the authority of the Authorized version?

Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. -- 2 Tim. 3:7

[EdJones]

Thanks Solly for the welcome.











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Job 26
2 How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?
3 How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom? and how hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
4 To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit came from thee?
5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.

[Solly]

Hi Ex. Good to see you made it.

We are a KJV using denomination but we don't go down the KJV only route.
This is where we take out stand: TBS (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/)

[EdJones]

The TBS is a good outfit.

[Socrates]

The TBS does NOT agree with Ruckman that the KJV is especially inspired. But they are still misguided as has been amply shown here, because the KJV uses an inferior text and the language is archaic.

[Solly]

03-14-2003 @ 12:50 AM
Socrates:

The TBS does NOT agree with Ruckman that the KJV is especially inspired. But they are still misguided as has been amply shown here, because the KJV uses an inferior text and the language is archaic.

they are "misguided" in that they do not accept the liberal-darwinian agenda that spawned the modern eclectic text via W&H and others that results in page after page of critical apparatus on the basis that "older is generally better". They are "misguided" in that they happen to believe that we did have a reliable Bible before the modern age.
As for the KJV, you are right, it needs revising, and that is what the RV should have been, but W&H substituted a new Greek text which was outside their remit. I like the ESV as a modern rendition, and find it ironic that the TBS are producing modern translations in other languages, but cannot in English due to their constitution.

[dizzle]

Why hello Explosived. Welcome to TWeb.

[Socrates]

Socrates:The TBS does NOT agree with Ruckman that the KJV is especially inspired. But they are still misguided as has been amply shown here, because the KJV uses an inferior text and the language is archaic. Solly replied:they are "misguided" in that they do not accept the liberal-darwinian agenda that spawned the modern eclectic text via W&HThis is not fair. There is nothing Darwinistic about believing that earlier manuscripts are likely to be closer to the original, and outweigh the majority that date from the 9th century and later. Nor is there anything Darwinian about believing that these later manuscripts show evidence of conflation, harmonization and expansion of piety.

For goodness's sake, as if I would support anything Darwinian -- do you forget with whom you speak? :hrm: Nor can I imagine Jaltus or GrayPilgrim doing so, nor Don Carson and James White. All of us believe that the UBS text is closer to the originals than the so-called Textus Receptus.

In my post http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=19899#post19899 earlier on this thread, I show a number of places where the dreadful W/H text is stronger on doctrine!... and others that results in page after page of critical apparatus on the basis that "older is generally better". Which is perfectly reasonable, and hardly Darwinian as I've said.
They are "misguided" in that they happen to believe that we did have a reliable Bible before the modern age.They don't believe that, but they also don't see why it can't be improved. Supporters of the Latin Vulgate said the same thing as KJVOs when Erasmus first produced the Greek text that later became the TR. BTW, if it's fair to attack the text of Westcott and Hort for their alleged Darwinism, then it should also be fair to attack the TR because Erasmus was a Roman Catholic who opposed Martin Luther!
As for the KJV, you are right, it needs revising,Good to know you're not KJVO. Although I think the Majority Text is inferior, it's at least reasonable to defend it. But KJVO is just anti-intellectual populist demagogery. ... and that is what the RV should have been, but W&H substituted a new Greek text which was outside their remit. I like the ESV as a modern rendition, and find it ironic that the TBS are producing modern translations in other languages, but cannot in English due to their constitution. Crazy, eh? Why can't they go for something like Jay Green's or Dr Kouric's update of the KJV in modern English but based on the same texts? That's by far my main gripe with the King Jimmy -- that the archaic language is so foreign to most English speakers today, to say nothing of those with English as a second language.

[Jaltus]

The thing I find most humorous is that Dean Burgon would not be allowed to join the Dean Burgon society. After all, he believed in the Majorty Text, not the TR. He himself thought the KJV needed to be changed.

[praxeus]

Let me give some thoughts about the Dean John Burgon questions.

He was a textual giant and disassembled lots of erroneous argumentation from the Westcott-Hort crew.

Now if those of you who embrace the modern versions would understand what Dean John Burgon taught, you would simply discard all the alexandrian eclectic texts you use, and use a version that is vastly superior. Even moving to the New James James Version, with all its weaknesses, would be a vast improvement from your current alexandrian bibles.

The same, in modern times, would come to pass if you would follow the views of Maurice Robinson (Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text). It would be a tremendous step in the right direction.

Even in my own understanding of the Scripture Texts, somethign very similar to this occurred.

So pointing out differences between Dean John Burgon, or Maurice Robinson, from the King James Bible position, is really
simply missing the point. These excellent scholars do in fact
show the erroneous and fallacious logic in the Westcott-Hort
view that has created the deficient alexandrian text that
you, and James White etc, are using to fight against the
Historic Scriptures. After you simply study, with an honest
heart, their excellent work, then you will be in a position to
go to the next step, which is undersanding the distinctions
in the various Byzantine Text, Textus Receptus, and King
James Bible positions.

If you would just study with a sincere heart, and accept the
basic textual teachings of a Dean John Burgon, you would
be making a giant, huge, humongous step forward, even
if you still were nervous and unsure of the Authority of the
King James Bible. Please do try to understand these textual
issues, and approach them with a humble heart.

Shalom,
Praxeus

[Ric]

02-19-2003 @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=19729#post19729)
Ric:

:spam: :spam: :spam:

:spam: :spam: :spam:

[Jaltus]

I do approach them with a humble heart. I find it unlikely in the extreme that one scholar is right and everyone else is wrong. Dean Burgon is the only major text critical scholar in the last 150 years (excluding the last 20 years) who bought into MT theory.

There are a few newer guys who buy it, but they are not really text critics (as can be seen by their acceptance of the fallacious I John 5:7-8 passage).

I can understand buying into some of the theory, but I see no reason to take the MT over the papyri, which are nearly unanimously Alexandrian, thus validating in general the Alexandrian text.

Those who argue today for the MT perception generally do so by arguing against W- H, but W- H is no longer the position modern scholars hold to, though they are the two who started the movement.

You argue that older does not mean better, but more does not mean better either, and there is no other reason to argue for the MT position than to say there are more for the MT than any other tradition. Otherwise, everything else makes sense for the eclectic version, not the MT.

Stop fighting the strawman of the Wescott - Hort position and come into at least the 20th century, if not the 21st.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101149#post101149)
praxeus:

Let me give some thoughts about the Dean John Burgon questions.

He was a textual giant and disassembled lots of erroneous argumentation from the Westcott-Hort crew.

Ah yes, here come the abusive ad hominems against Westcott and Hort. But then why not reject the TR as well because it came from the Romanist Erasmus, who opposed Luther and the Reformation?

Now if those of you who embrace the modern versions would understand what Dean John Burgon taught, you would simply discard all the alexandrian eclectic texts you use, and use a version that is vastly superior. Even moving to the New James James Version, with all its weaknesses, would be a vast improvement from your current alexandrian bibles.

Who says it's weaker? How about dealing with my Post 9 on this thread, which shows the superiority of the Alexandrian-based texts on doctrine.

If you would just study with a sincere heart, and accept the basic textual teachings of a Dean John Burgon, you would
be making a giant, huge, humongous step forward, even
if you still were nervous and unsure of the Authority of the
King James Bible. Please do try to understand these textual
issues, and approach them with a humble heart.

This is NOT a fair method of arguing between Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy. Please demonstrate your case with facts without such pious-sounding emotional manipulation.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102254#post102254)
Jaltus:

There are a few newer guys who buy it, but they are not really text critics (as can be seen by their acceptance of the fallacious I John 5:7-8 passage).

And James White did NOT buy the Comma Johanneum.

I can understand buying into some of the theory, but I see no reason to take the MT over the papyri, which are nearly unanimously Alexandrian, thus validating in general the Alexandrian text.

Which one could argue is theologically better anyway -- see Post #9.

You argue that older does not mean better, but more does not mean better either, and there is no other reason to argue for the MT position than to say there are more for the MT than any other tradition. Otherwise, everything else makes sense for the eclectic version, not the MT.

Looking at a number of examples that Carson and White gave (and they are staunch inerrantists and Trinitarian) convinced me that the eclectic version best reflects the original, while the MT shows evidence of harmonization, filling out OT quotations and expansion of piety. Probably Jaltus has studied textual issues at least as deeply as either of them.

Stop fighting the strawman of the Wescott - Hort position and come into at least the 20th century, if not the 21st.

Also, the ad hominems should cease. First, such arguments commit the genetic fallacy, and as I said, could equally well (or rather, equally fallaciously) to Erasmus and the TR. Second, many of the charges by the likes of Riplinger are slanderous. E.g. they were not spiritists -- rather, they formed what was later nicknamed the "ghostlie guild" to investigate the spiritualism that was rife in Victorian England, and concluded that nothing good could come of it!

Furthermore, the following quotes by Westcott demonstrate his basic orthodoxy on the Deity of Christ and the Resurrection, which many KJVOs accusing him of denying: From The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.

From The Gospel of the Resurrection, MacMillan, London, 4th Ed., p. 115, 1889

Taking all the evidences together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested any idea of a deficiency in the proof of it. … In any ordinary matter of life, the evidence would be amply sufficient to determine our action and belief.

[EdJones]

Speaking of Ruckman, Have you read his work called "The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence"? Wouldn't you think a man who can critique the ones who critiqe AT Robertson and Warfield and who has been teaching Greek and Hebrew for over 40 years is very qualified?

[kingsword]

I would like to know where did you Alexandrian text believers find the following:
Gen:1-1 to Gen 46:48, Ps 106-138, the Pauline Pastoral Episltles, Heb 9:14 to Heb 13:25, and all of Revelation, since there are no where to be found in the Vaticanus or Siniaticus? Could it be that you had to use that "dreadful" Textus Receptus, by that " rotten papist" Erasmus?

" woe unto ye, hypocrites..."
by the way, that has been omitted by your NIV.