Page 3 of 10 (181 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 180 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 1692
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Jul 29 2009 9:59 PM

Our primary aim is publishing material that helps people study the Bible. This tends to be "Christian" content, but includes some Jewish material as well as purely secular resources -- like the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (Because it's useful to people studying the Bible.)

Within our organization there are many Christian viewpoints (and probably some non-believers). I'm sure there's a (subtle) bias along the lines of "that author sounds familiar -- let's do their books!" But, with a book count already over 10,000, most of us are way beyond recognizing and being able to theologically classify every book.

Your comments to suggest@logos.com are a big influence on what we publish; the other big influence is our ability to get the publishers to go along.

The only "theological bias" related to publishers we work with is that we've found it harder to work wtih publishers in more hierarchial denominations. If the publisher is owned by a denomination, and/or if the denomination also owns its own bookstores, schools, etc. then it can be slower to work with independents like us, and more reliant on its own channels, and on getting lots of people to sign off before doing something.

It's not impossible to work with these publishers -- and we've had some great success - but it's usually just a bit more time consuming, and that's probably reflected in our catalog of titles.\

Our goal is to have every book on earth that's useful to a student of the Bible. (The ones we can't afford to type we'll scan and put at http://books.logos.com.)

Thanks for keeping the suggestions coming!

-- Bob

 

Posts 634
Pastor Michael Huffman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 5:21 AM

Chris:

I believe hyper-calvinism is an abomination and that it's parameters equate to a puppet show.

 

Chris-

I too, believe that hyper-calvinism is an abomination. In fact, as I said before, it is sub-Calvinism or anti-Calvinism.

Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M

Posts 634
Pastor Michael Huffman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 5:24 AM

Jack made a comment about reading things from all kinds of sources. Which I most certainly do, and when compared to Scripture, the soteriology of the non-calvinist is found wanting. Now, before any says that I just said that unless you are a calvinist you are not a Christian. I am not saying that. I know plenty of non-calvinst that are good brothers. However, their views and their final analysis of salvation comes up to be inconsistent.

Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M

Posts 634
Pastor Michael Huffman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 5:28 AM

It also seems to me that the fair question that I asked at the beginning of this thread, was only objected to those that are non-calvinist. They seem very unwillingly to even mention the name. Not all, of course, but many.

Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M

Posts 273
Ken Avery | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 5:45 AM

Ted Hans:

Matthew C Jones:

Yes, imho, they do.


I have found that when someone identifies themselves as an AV ("KJV") only person, they will have issues with the NKJV as well as any other version. The fundamental difference is not in which version is the best translation but appears to be a faith-based conviction that the 1611 Authorized Version is "God's Word for the English-speaking peoples."   I find it interesting that leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham have been called everything from errant brothers to heretics by the KJV-only tribe.

I have heard from many sides of this debate. Most want to make personal attacks on each other or ridicule by misrepresenting their opponent's statements. There are colorful personalities on both sides that offer a lot of fuel to the fire. I do find a lot of valid points get raised in spite of the loose canons firing indiscriminately at everything that moves. There does appear to be a change in the language of modern translations that question key Bible doctrines. There does appear to be a flippant attitude that promotes a cafeteria plan of Christian doctrine -- a "whatever floats your boat" mentality.

Disclaimer: Many of my KJV-only friends think I am a poor, misguided soul for my lack of dogma in this arena.. I have a much bigger argument with the cheapening of grace and disrespect of God than I do with what version we read. 

 

Thank you very much and every blessings. As promised i am done, no further question.YesYes

Ted

Ted,

You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that.

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Posts 10645
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 5:54 AM

Ken Avery:

Ted,

…The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Ken

What is the source of this information?

Jack

Posts 172
Chris Ease | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:07 AM
Some noted Calvinist are Piper (ESV), Sproul (ESV), MacArthur (NASB and once used NKJV).
Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:23 AM

Ken Avery:

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

What in the world ever gave you that idea?  There is nothing Arian regarding the Critical Text or the texts on which it is based.  The TR is the corrupt text as has been shown time and again.  The Pericope Adultera, the Johannine Coma, numerous errors in single words such as the one you earlier asked regarding in Revelation.  It didn't occur to me to check the TR on that since I knew the TR was corrupt which is why I wasn't aware that there was actually a textual difference.  Even the Byzantine Majority text is an improvement on the TR.  You realize, I suppose, that Erasmus even had to backtranslate from the Vulgate since there were some verses for which he had no text.  I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 452
David Buckham | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:32 AM

Michael Huffman:

I would like to see how may calvinist users there are versus non-calvinist users.

Michael,

I am not a Calvinist.  Nor would I classify myself as an Arminianist.  Nor would I say I am an Calminian.  I am a devoted follower of Christ that doesn't want to put God in any sort of box when understanding His total sovereignty (which is impossible for man to understand fully) and humanity's free will (let alone understanding my own personal free will and not speaking for everyone on this earth).  It would seem that if you are going to take the scriptures as a whole, you cannot neglect either side of the argument.  Remember also, that both views have been argued completely and Biblically for a very long time (even before Calvin and Arminius).

Now, on a side note.  Logos has recently published many Calvinistic works.  No doubt.  I hope this is not a doctrinal statement from Logos and that they will soon be releasing many Arminian works as well.

all about Christ,

David Buckham

all about Christ,

David Buckham

http://thinkspurlove.blogspot.com

 

 

Posts 6490
Forum MVP
Lynden Williams | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:37 AM

Thanks for your input Bob. Your goal and mine "Our goal is to have every book on earth that's useful to a student of the Bible." are the same. Who cares which denominatin publishes it. When studying for my degree, they never asked which denomination published the book, or what the authors view point was. As long as it was relevant to the work being researched the philosophy was, knock your self out.

The more you read and the wider you read the better off you are.

I like George's concept. "I don't need anyone to tell me what I believe". Hope I quoted you right George.

Every thing written or spoken relating to religion available in Libronix.

 

p.s.  Yes that includes non christian religions also.

Everything ever written in Religion and Theology formatted for Logos Bible Software.Logos Youtube Channel

Posts 634
Pastor Michael Huffman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:49 AM

David Buckham:
I am a devoted follower of Christ that doesn't want to put God in any sort of box when understanding His total sovereignty (which is impossible for man to understand fully)

David,

Thanks for the comment. It needs to be understood that when people are submissive to what the Scripture says about the sovereignty of God, then it is not as hard to understand than people want to think. Not that I have it all figured by any means, but there are some clear things that the Scriptures do speak about in the Psalms, Romans, 1 Peter, John and many other passages in regard to His sovereignty. We need to be careful that we do not allow others unwillingness to study the subject to become our crutch. Not that I am saying that is what you are doing, David. I would encourage you to study these things for yourself and do not allow others comments to keep you from understanding truth. It is really the non-calvinist who puts God into a box and God must depend on the "free will" of man, order to save him. Or as Billy Graham put it, "God brings us 99% of the way and the rest is up to us". Yet the Scripture say that we are 100% depraved so that 1% could not come (Read Romans 8:7-8). We must have God completely do the work and cause us to be willing. That is not a box, that is the freedom of the Sovereignty of God that the Scriptures celebrate.

Michael

Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M

Posts 273
Ken Avery | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 6:53 AM

JackCaviness:

Ken Avery:

Ted,

…The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Ken

What is the source of this information?

Jack

Jack,

I was only attmpting to give a strait answer on what the AV position is; the question was about wheather or not the NKJV would be considered kosher with the AV; I was mearly answering this question with a little background on the AV position.

If you google AV, Textus Reseptus and such, you can find more information on the AV position; there is plenty of information available to show that their position is what I stated. If you are asking me to prove what the are saying is correct then that will take more time digging thru old historical documents and such.

I was only answering the question based on some of the stated AV reasons; I was not offering to defend the AV position.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Posts 273
Ken Avery | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:05 AM

Chris:
Some noted Calvinist are Piper (ESV), Sproul (ESV), MacArthur (NASB and once used NKJV).

 

I was refering to Calvin not Calvinists; Calvin used TR based Greek Texts Smile

Posts 634
Pastor Michael Huffman | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:08 AM

The Greek text behind the AV is from a text done not until the 16th century, by a Roman Catholc, Erasmus. We have many other older manuscripts. I say this because KJV only people often go back to TR as the best text. However, many KJV only people (Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc.), say that the KJV corrects the original Greek. I have, through the efforts of Logos, manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century. When I have a textual variant, I will usually go with the older manuscript as long as it fits the context.  However, I have never found an unexplained doctrinal variant, and rearely do I find a doctrinal variant.

Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:10 AM

Lynden Williams:

I like George's concept. "I don't need anyone to tell me what I believe". Hope I quoted you right George.

Every thing written or spoken relating to religion available in Libronix.

It's either exactly what I said or close enough that I wouldn't quibble with it.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 273
Ken Avery | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:15 AM

George Somsel:

Ken Avery:

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

 

What in the world ever gave you that idea?  There is nothing Arian regarding the Critical Text or the texts on which it is based.  The TR is the corrupt text as has been shown time and again.  The Pericope Adultera, the Johannine Coma, numerous errors in single words such as the one you earlier asked regarding in Revelation.  It didn't occur to me to check the TR on that since I knew the TR was corrupt which is why I wasn't aware that there was actually a textual difference.  Even the Byzantine Majority text is an improvement on the TR.  You realize, I suppose, that Erasmus even had to backtranslate from the Vulgate since there were some verses for which he had no text.  I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.

 

It is interesting that Ha Satan quoted the Bible; Jesus, corrected him because he misrepresented the information. Notice, Ha Satan did not lie; in other words you can be telling the truth; though, not tell the whole story, giving a fasle representation of the truth. For this I will not contend with what you have said; though, I will note that it is not obvious that the entire story is being told; thus, it is not apperant that the truth is being represented in its proper context.

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:20 AM

Ken Avery:

 

I was refering to Calvin not Calvinists; Calvin used TR based Greek Texts Smile

Of course he did.  That is what was available at the time.  Did you expect him to use NA27?

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:29 AM

Ken Avery:

You have asked this question several times and I believe you deserve a strait answer; the answer Mr. Jones gave is not that.

It is much more fundamental; the AV is based on the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek and the modern versions are based on the Critical Text (CT). The TR is the Greek version of the NT that was passed down from generation to generation and preserved even if ones life was dependendent on preserving the Greek Text. The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy; if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT which was rejected by the Church Fathers and attempts to produced Greek texts that reflect a more Arian view.

This being the case, your NKJV is not based on the TR; thus, it would not be consider AV.

I hope this helps.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Dear brother Ted H.,

Ken just gave you his rationale for why the TR is the better manuscript than the CT. Ken also gave his opinion as to why a Calvinist would reject NKJV - "if you are Calvin then the TR represents your belief better than the CT."
George, a Calvinist, has strongly criticized the TR and defended the CT manuscripts in these forums. So not all Calvinists would agree with Ken.

I agree whole-heartedly with Ken that TR is the better manuscript. I would state just because someone dies for their beliefs does not make them right. Consider Michael Servetus' execution by Calvin and the modern day suicide-bombers.

I answered your question precisely, based on what the "AV only" proponents would say. Every one of them would reject the Geneva Bible, even though it is also based on the TR and preceded the AV in publication. The self-described KJVO does not accept any other version - no matter what Greek manuscripts it is based on.  They even reject The Evidence Bible which is essentially the KJV with just the Thees/Thous/Thines updated.  You will rarely hear them refer to the "original Greek" from the pulpit. So I surmise the issue the self-labeled KJV Only adherents would take with the NKJV is not manuscript-based but a faith that the AV is THE version God will have us read and no changes are permissible. (BTW: the NKJV editors claim it is based on the TR with "comparisons" to the CT manuscripts.)

I thought you were asking for a cultural insight into the "KJV Only" views. If you were inquiring about manuscripts & the best version for Calvinists, I am sorry I misunderstood.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 273
Ken Avery | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:35 AM

Michael Huffman:

The Greek text behind the AV is from a text done not until the 16th century, by a Roman Catholc, Erasmus. We have many other older manuscripts. I say this because KJV only people often go back to TR as the best text. However, many KJV only people (Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, etc.), say that the KJV corrects the original Greek. I have, through the efforts of Logos, manuscripts that date back to the 2nd century. When I have a textual variant, I will usually go with the older manuscript as long as it fits the context.  However, I have never found an unexplained doctrinal variant, and rearely do I find a doctrinal variant.

The statement about the AV/KJV lacks some detail; the fact that you have not found doctrinal errors is very interesting. When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text. If you study the actual variances you will soon learn there are approximately 1,000, very minor, differences between the texts. The TR that was used for the KJV was the culmination of generations of people working and dying to preserve the most accurate version of the majority of the texts; mostly correcting minor scribal errors.

On the other hand, the Critical Text has approximately 3,000 anomalies that disagree with the TR; the differences are more than just minor scribal errors they also include doctrinal differences. 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jul 30 2009 7:43 AM

Ken Avery:
When you say we have many older texts you are correct and the majority, no pun intended, of them agree with the TR; as a matter of fact, they are variants of the TR based on a common text.

No, they are not variants of the TR even though you qualify it as "based on a common text."  The TR and Byz Maj and other individual texts such as Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are variants of a common text.  It is not that the others are variants of the TR.  It seems that this statement is a backdoor attempt to establish the TR as the base.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Page 3 of 10 (181 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS