Fundamentalist Base Package and King James Only Resource Collection

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/752621#Comment_752621

I'm still listening to the youtube video of Dr. White. I've heard of him, heard good things about him, never directly heard him before.

So far I agree with a lot of his conclusions RE the new quaranic fragments, but I am not sure about some (mainly one) of his premises. He says its properly basic that any first semester student of islam should be able to tell which era it was written in based on the (basic textual criticism) arabic (and ink etc). I agree that this work needs doing, but I'm not sure any first semester student will be able to look at the arabic, the ink, the vellum, and so forth and KNOW whether its real or not. I'd argue that the same is true of the average christian with a semester of study on Christianity would be unable to know these things about Greek or Hebrew. I've spent some time studying islam, and I wouldn't be able to answer those questions by looking at the images of the manuscript - further its clear that Dr. White can't (yet) answer those questions either or he'd have given them. So the process is perhaps a bit more complicated.

So far - other than that, its been interesting.

Edit: I liked what he had to say about the TR, and whether he's being true to the LBCF.

I LOVED what he had to say about facebook groups, and how people envoke his name in the process of.

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-james-white-on-version-issue.html

I would like to draw attention to the response to James White's video here:

I intend to publish a reply also, Lord willing, although I have not gotten around to it yet.

I would like to debate Mr. White on the topic below.

The Scriptural paradigm of preservation fits the King James Version and its underlying Greek text better than the Greek critical text and modern Bible versions translated from it.

Affirm: Thomas Ross

Deny: James White

or:

The Scriptural paradigm of preservation fits the Greek critical text and modern Bible versions translated from it better than the King James Version and the Greek Received Text.

Affirm: James White

Deny: Thomas Ross

In relation to the original topic on this forum, I suspect that James White himself and anti-KJVO people would themselves buy a KJVO collection so that they could better oppose the dangerous heresy of believing in the perfect preservation of Scripture as taught by the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753617#Comment_753617

Sorry but I don't read beyond the title of an article when the title is a personal attack.

Please take this to Christian Discourse.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753639#Comment_753639

Dear M. J. Smith,

Thanks for the comment. If you don't want to read the response I linked to above because of the title, that is fine. However, I trust that you will apply the same standard to James White's video, which has not a few personal attacks, misrepresentations, and fallacies in it, and refrain from watching either it or the response to it I linked to above.

Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753653#Comment_753653

I assure you I maintain the same standards of logic and manners to everything I read without regard to my personal stance on the matter. And until both sides of the KJVO debate recognize that the Western Church is not historical the major church of the world, I'll not bother to read either side.

BTW I taught my kids that "he did it first" or "but everyone does it" was reason to sic the logic hound on them.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753654#Comment_753654

Dear M. J. Smith,

You might be interested in the popular level work "The Trail of Blood" and John Christian's scholarly 2 volume history of true churches at:

http://faithsaves.net/catholic/

for a study of where Christ's true churches have been from the 1st century until the present.

Also, if by "Western Church" you mean Roman Catholicism, you might be interested to find out that the Textus Receptus of the KJV is essentially the text copied by Eastern scribes rather than a product of Roman Catholic Latin scribes.

Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753669#Comment_753669

I am not sure "trail of blood" is properly academic.

Fallacy hound may like it however (that is if he likes being called upon).

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753669#Comment_753669

I thought this thread was about requesting a Fundamentalist Base Package and King James Only Resource Collection.........

I would buy it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753669#Comment_753669

This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion - please read the guidelines. I am sufficiently informed on alternative canons and manuscript traditions to know rather precisely Eramus' sources, his modifications based on comparison to other texts, to know the variations between Eramus text and the Patriarchal text of the Orthodox (Byzantine) Church, to know that Eramus access to manuscripts was severely limited and of comparative recent province when he accessed them ...And pointing to an anti-Catholic polemic page is bad form in these forums (again see guidelines). The purpose of these forums is to allow everyone using Logos/Verbum to feel comfortable coming on the forums, asking questions and receiving answers.

It is very appropriate to ask that a bundle of KJVO materials be offered. It is highly desirable that a Fundamentalist base package be offered ... assuming I understand correctly what is intended by "fundamentalist" ... a question that was not answered IIRC.

And to clarify ... by Western Church I mean the Church in the West - primarily Latin based; by Byzantine Church I mean the middle strip geographically - primarily Greek based; by Eastern Church I mean the Church to the East of Byzanthium - primarily Syriac based. For a relevant bibliography see the canon comparison interactive tool.

For anyone wanting to read an academic support for the Textus Receptus, I'd recommended John William Burgon"s The Revision Revised (1881), Edward Miller's A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886).or Edward F. Hills' The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts (1956).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753679#Comment_753679

The question still remains, does fallacy hound like to come out and play? Or would he prefer to stay home sitting in his doghouse, or on his masters lap?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753686#Comment_753686

The question still remains, does fallacy hound like to come out and play? Or would he prefer to stay home sitting in his doghouse, or on his masters lap?

The poor mutt can't contain himself ... he's turning in circles, jumping to lick my face, and too excited to hold still for a public appearance.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753679#Comment_753679

Dear M. J. Smith,

Thanks again for the comment. I agree that the resources you listed would be great for a KJVO collection.

Far be it from me to keep anyone from being comfortable coming on these forums asking questions and receiving answers.

I would suggest that the historical resources I referenced on the page termed "anti-Catholic polemic" are indeed relevant to the topic, as for one who believes, like I do, that neither the Western nor Eastern State-churches constitute Christ's congregation, but that the Anabaptist dissenters who existed from the 1st century until the present do, this fact has significant implications for the question of what is the ecclesiastical text. Thus, the fact that the Waldensian Bible contained 1 John 5:7 is very significant for a KJVO of my stripe and counterbalances its absence in the majority of MSS copied by Eastern Orthodox monks. The prominent KJVO writer David Otis Fuller, among others, pointed out that the line of 20 centuries of Anabaptist/Baptist dissent used a Textus Receptus sort of text.

Thanks again.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753751#Comment_753751

Dear KJB1611 -

Please understand this is not the place for this kind of discussion ...nor for the reference page you gave which does make others uncomfortable coming on these forums. Given that I defined the 3 broad categories of churches for purposes of Bible manuscript traditions geographically, your comments deserve

To avoid violating the guidelines myself, I'm pulling out of this thread.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753784#Comment_753784

Dear M. J. Smith,

Thank you so much for your helpful comments in this thread.

Dear all,

Here is part 2 of a response to James White's video discussed earlier:

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-james-white-on-version-issue_4.html

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753801#Comment_753801

Please try to refrain from sharing links other than to things like a link to a book you wish to see introduced to Logos. I know you mean no harm whatsoever but all in all this is suppose to be a theologically neutral zone. FL has given users a forum called Christian Discourses to discuss things. Try to imagine links to "Gay Christians" websites or even more disturbing "Reasons Why Jesus is Not God". This is primarily designed to offer technical help for FL products. Most of us have been guilty now and then of sharing things that go past the line, so just a word of reminder of the forum guidelines. God Bless and I hope you can get your collections soon.

-Dan

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753814#Comment_753814

Dan beat me to it (was going to respond earlier today but Logos had an outage), but these forums, as Dan mentioned, are mainly "technical" forums. The goal of these forums is to get tech support for Faithlife/Logos products, suggest resources/collections you want to see in Faithlife/Logos products, etc. Theological discussions are best left to ChristianDiscourse.com, which is another Faithlife/Logos forum site, but specifically targeted for Theological/Biblical type discussions.

This thread is best used for making a list of resources you'd want to see in a Faithlife/Logos collection (such as a Fundamental Collection with resources that defends fundamentalism, the KJV, etc) and if you want to go into a Theological discussion on fundamentalism, KJV only, etc, moving those links and discussions to ChristianDiscourse.com would be ideal.

For what it's worth, I would be interested in a Fundamental Collection with resources that advocate a KJV only position, and I know other colleges and churches that would be interested in it, as well as if you start a discussion on fundamentalism and/or KJV only over on ChristianDiscourse.com, I'd be happy to read it and watch the discussion unfold.

Faithlife/Logos just wishes to keep things organized and "on topic" by having a technical/support/product suggestion forum separate from their Theology/debate forum.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753784#Comment_753784

Dear KJB1611 -

Please understand this is not the place for this kind of discussion (...) your comments deserve

To avoid violating the guidelines myself, I'm pulling out of this thread.

:):):)[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

Dear M. J. Smith,

Thanks again for the comment. I agree that the resources you listed would be great for a KJVO collection.

Far be it from me to keep anyone from being comfortable coming on these forums asking questions and receiving answers.

I would suggest that the historical resources I referenced on the page termed "anti-Catholic polemic" are indeed relevant to the topic, as for one who believes, like I do, that neither the Western nor Eastern State-churches constitute Christ's congregation, but that the Anabaptist dissenters who existed from the 1st century until the present do, this fact has significant implications for the question of what is the ecclesiastical text. Thus, the fact that the Waldensian Bible contained 1 John 5:7 is very significant for a KJVO of my stripe and counterbalances its absence in the majority of MSS copied by Eastern Orthodox monks. The prominent KJVO writer David Otis Fuller, among others, pointed out that the line of 20 centuries of Anabaptist/Baptist dissent used a Textus Receptus sort of text.

Thanks again.

[:#][:#][:#][:#][:#]
[&][&][&][&][&] A pack of Fallacy Puppies.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753838#Comment_753838

Thanks all.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753840#Comment_753840

Yes, thanks all.

One more book worth adding to a KJV-only collection:

The Translators Revived: a Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible [KJV], Alexander W. McClure

Thomas Ball

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753617#Comment_753617

I would like to draw attention to the response to James White's video here:

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-james-white-on-version-issue.html

I intend to publish a reply also, Lord willing, although I have not gotten around to it yet.

I would like to debate Mr. White on the topic below.

The Scriptural paradigm of preservation fits the King James Version and its underlying Greek text better than the Greek critical text and modern Bible versions translated from it.

Affirm: Thomas Ross

Deny: James White

or:

The Scriptural paradigm of preservation fits the Greek critical text and modern Bible versions translated from it better than the King James Version and the Greek Received Text.

Affirm: James White

Deny: Thomas Ross

In relation to the original topic on this forum, I suspect that James White himself and anti-KJVO people would themselves buy a KJVO collection so that they could better oppose the dangerous heresy of believing in the perfect preservation of Scripture as taught by the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

As MJ and others have mentioned, these forums are for discussion regarding Faithlife and the products Faithlife produces. Though suggesting resources can easily stray into theological discussions this is not the place for them. Please refrain from such conversation in the future. Here is a link to our forum guidelines https://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx.

Thank you.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754083#Comment_754083

Take a look at:

""Welcome to Christian Discourse! Christian Discourse is a civilized place for public discussion. Here you can share your thoughts, questions, and experiences about the Christian Faith and all its facets. Find the right category for your contribution and become part of the community!""

http://christiandiscourse.com/

[[Warning: Some topics get 'flamed' but just ignore those replies]]

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754143#Comment_754143

Just adding a suggestion that if there is a KJV resource collection released, Faithlife might want to use it as an opportunity to review and beef up the Textus Receptus offerings. Specifically I am referring to (in no particular order):

1. Including at least one edition of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus. See https://community.logos.com/forums/p/113732/753444.aspx

2. Including a COMPLETE copy of Scrivener's Greek text. From what I can tell, Logos offers Scrivener in three flavors, two of which are missing the preface and all three of which are missing an appendix mentioned in the preface. See https://community.logos.com/forums/p/113850/754069.aspx

3. Including the 1633 text of the Elzevirs. This was the edition with the famous statement in the preface, “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus” (“You have therefore the text now received by all: in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.”). It is from this that the term "Textus Receptus" arose, yet this edition does not appear to be available in Logos. All I see is this, which only has a modern preface (although it is not labelled as such), not a preface from the original publication: https://www.logos.com/product/1795/elzevir-textus-receptus

4. Updating any other relevant TR texts that may only be partial texts. Points 2 and 3 make me question if relevant parts are missing from other texts. I don't know. Others may be better able to comment on this.

5. Including at least one edition of Beza's text.

Yes, these texts only vary in minor ways, especially after printing errors are taken into consideration, but they also have historical and academic value. Since I think I already made my point here, I will spare the Logos community from having to read threads entitled "Has anyone seen Beza?" and "Has anyone seen the Elzevirs?" [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754311#Comment_754311

Dear Matthew,

Very good idea. Publishing a complete Ben Chayyim 1524-1525 Rabbinic Bible (online in the public domain here: http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/) would be a good one to include also, as would the Ginsburg ed. of the Hebrew Textus Receptus as published by the Trinitarian Bible society

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754314#Comment_754314

Also:

Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Jacob ben Chayyim

Introduction to the Massoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, C. D. Ginsburg

which are in the public domain and linked to here (http://faithsaves.net/hebrew-courses/

these Hebrew text resources would also be valuable in a general textual criticism package, and I could see both TR/KJV and critical text resources bundled together and finding their way into a base package, as some already are.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754316#Comment_754316

The Gomez revision of the Reina-Valera would also be a great feature for Logos, e. g.:

http://www.4thesaviour.com/8.html

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754320#Comment_754320

The Gomez revision of the Reina-Valera would also be a great feature for Logos

User DominicM made it into a Personal Book bible: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/83996/588901.aspx#588901

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/754339#Comment_754339

David Otis Fuller's works defending the KJV are held by the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, and Logos can contact them to get permission to use them:

http://kjv-ibts.org/

David Cloud's works defending the KJV are at:

http://wayoflife.org

so Logos can contact him there for permission.

The Biblical theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture edited by Kent Brandenburg can have permission obtained by contacting Bethel Baptist Church here:

http://www.pillarandground.org/home/

and permissions for the KJVO essays here:

http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/

can be obtained here:

http://faithsaves.net/contact-us/

I hope Logos acts on these soon!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/756951#Comment_756951

When Logos does not have a relationship already established with a publisher, I assume it will take at least a year although it has occasionally been less when the publisher was already primed for contact by Logos.

When there is a relationship with the publisher, I still allow at least six months for them to cycle back to negotiating with a particular publisher.

In short, anything under a year and a half I assume was "already in the works".

This is pure speculation based on experience with no actual knowledge of their process for negotiating rights.

DivineCordial

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/756960#Comment_756960

I concur that both the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and Ginsburg should be added to Logos Bible Software, as well as any editions of Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus, and Elzevirs that are missing, but at least a significant edition of each.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/757071#Comment_757071

One more work Logos should have: Those So Called Errors, Chet Kulus

Darrell Todd Maurina

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/753751#Comment_753751

I know this is an old thread from 2015 and the original poster last posted in August of last year, but I want to follow up on this:

"Thus, the fact that the Waldensian Bible contained 1 John 5:7 is very significant for a KJVO of my stripe and counterbalances its absence in the majority of MSS copied by Eastern Orthodox monks."

Let me preface by saying that we use the KJV at Hazelgreen Reformed Chapel, we sent our daughter to our local Christian school which is KJV-only, and while my position is not KJV-only, I have no problem with using the KJV. Like a fair number of conservative Calvinists who use the KJV, I'm less pro-KJV than I am critical of most of the alternatives that seek to replace it.

That means I'm somewhat aware that some of the arguments in favor of the KJV use the translation Peter Waldo paid to have made into Occitan (a dialect of southern France and the Italian Alps that was mutually intelligible to speakers of standard French and standard Italian) as an argument in favor of a Textus Receptus position, but it's not a subject I've studied in detail. I'd appreciate links to references on the subject.

I don't want to make arguments attacking the modern translations or the critical text underlying most of them; my question has a limited focus of why some KJV-only advocates and some Textus Receptus advocates cite Peter Waldo's translation as an argument in their favor.