The Niv Challenge

[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.

[Faramir]

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 .) 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

[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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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&H

This 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? 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/sho...9899#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.

[Steven Avery]

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
Ric:

[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.