Logos Focus
Comments
-
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.[Y][Y]
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
If you keep talking you may have to label your fellow Calvinists as Arminians too. (Remember "hyper"-adherents view all lesser adherents as non-adherents.) If you believe You persevere rather than God Preserves you, it appears you are working to keep your salvation.
I tend to view a distinction such as "persevere / preserves" as being logomachia, a fighting over mere words, since I know of no Calvinist who would claim that he is responsible for his remaining in the faith whichever word he might use. After all, the entire point of the Calvinistic view is that it is God who acts in his salvation, not man.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I tend to view a distinction such as "persevere / preserves" as being logomachia, a fighting over mere words, since I know of no Calvinist who would claim that he is responsible for his remaining in the faith whichever word he might use. After all, the entire point of the Calvinistic view is that it is God who acts in his salvation, not man.
Maybe a better poll would be: "How many Logos users think they initiated &/or complete their own salvation?" Both queries are logomachies.
Or if it's just an "us versus them" thing: I bet Logos publishes more non-Calvinistic titles than Calvinistic ones. Another logomachy. It would never end.
I am just very happy to have ALL of it available. I would even place a Pre-pub for Elizabeth Fiorenza's works ($10.) [:)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
My apologies all around for any part I played in furthering this little OT dustup. I sincerely did not mean to help move us further OffTopic. I just (good naturedly) couldn't help but remind our brother that there are all sorts of theological nuances on these forums and using Libronix. As I was typing & pressing "Post" I kept thinking..."Cal, this whole thing is off topic. Responding is probably not a good idea." Whether it was the voice of wisdom or the voice of othe Holy Spirit, I don'tknow, but please accept my apologies for moving us further away from the purpose of fhese posts. I'm done with this thread.
Blessings on all who claim the name of the Lord.
0 -
I am just very happy to have ALL of it available. I would even place a Pre-pub for Elizabeth Fiorenza's works ($10.)
I'll see your $10 and raise you another $10.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I believe hyper-calvinism is an abomination and that it's parameters equate to a puppet show.
I believe salvation is a monergistic experience, not synergistic, since God is calling all (invitation).
I believe that a person has to be born again (regenerated) to be saved and to be spiritual.
I believe that it is divisive to argue 5 points of calvinism.
I believe calvinists are misunderstood and they realize that it is not by works that a man is saved, rather grace and may I say through faith (which is given by God) in the death, burial, and ressurection of our saviour Jesus Christ.
I believe that calvinists have a very high view of God and are not necessarily ego-driven.
I read mostly reformed material myself and I know people who can't stand calvinist doctrine and have almost any argument to refute calvinistic theology.
I appreciate calvinistic views because they are doctrinally focused and conservative, rather than some happy go feel "something thats not the Gospel".....Not to imply that "others" who are not calvinists are not preaching and teaching the Gospel.
I believe there could be an argument for KJV, NASB, and ESV as being calvinist bibles.
I do not believe that a KJV bible is superior to the above mentioned, nor inferior.
I believe God gives gifts and spiritual discernment.
I believe studying Greek in terms of New Testament study is a better way of evaluating what God's word says.
I believe God can speak to anyone through most any bible translation what He wants them to know.
I just wanted to state a set of some of my core beliefs.
I believe Logos has a lot of calvinistic material.0 -
Dr. Charles E. Booth, Mt. Olivet Baptist Church, Columbus, OH, was overheard saying last week, “I thank God today that I'm not so Baptist that I cant be Christian.” I would say "I thank God today that I'm not Methodist that I can't be Christian."
Blessings,
Floyd
Blessings,
FloydPastor-Patrick.blogspot.com
0 -
As a non-Calvinist, I really don't care how much Calvinist material Logos offers - but if it is their bread-and-butter financially, more power to Calvinist spending!
However, given their academic packages and partnerships (Jewish, Lutheran, Catholic), I won't be happy until ALL canons & liturgical traditions-American Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Slavic Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox have equal support - support not resources. [Yes, I am giving Logos a break on the Coptic canon]. Even the little things - the complete 1611 King James for example, the deuterocanonical readings in the Bible reading plan and Jewish titles for the readings of the lectionary - imply an "after-thought" for the non-evangelical. But I truly expect the next version of Logos to resolve these issues.
So that my expectations are met, spend, O you Calvinist, spend. (Ps. 2009:7)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Logos user here who subscribes to 5 Solas & 1 Triune God
Lenovo P72: Intel 8th Gen i7-8750H 6-core, 32GB RAM, 2TB HDD + 1TB Sata SSD, 17.3" FHD 1920x1080, NVIDIA Quadro P600 4GB, Win 10 Pro
0 -
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
0 -
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
0 -
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
0 -
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
0 -
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.
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,
Ken0 -
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,
KenKen
What is the source of this information?
Jack
0 -
Some noted Calvinist are Piper (ESV), Sproul (ESV), MacArthur (NASB and once used NKJV).0
-
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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
0 -
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.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
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
0 -
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,
KenKen
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,
Ken0 -
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
0 -
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
0 -
I was refering to Calvin not Calvinists; Calvin used TR based Greek Texts
Of course he did. That is what was available at the time. Did you expect him to use NA27?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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,
KenDear 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
0 -
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,
Ken0 -
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
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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.
You will need to do better than that. You are attempting to dismiss my statements without actually showing that any are in error or missleading by being incomplete. Unless you can produce evidence, your comparison of my statements to those of Satan are reprehensible.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0
