Logos Focus
Comments
-
Hey Guys,
We have really gotten off the subject of this thread. This is blowing my email up, so please move this to another thread. My original question has been exhausted and it seems that we have more calvinist here than non. So my question has been answered. Thank you very much.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
The RT was produced by men who had the fear of God in them and spent their entire life examining the texts to produce the best possible Greek text. If you want to sort thru the details there is a great web site that is full of valuable information; it probably will not change your mind; though, it might fill in the details that are so often overlooked.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
God bless you and keep you,
KenThanks for drawing my attention to this Web Site.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
Toggle Contents Pane? (the little icon in the upper right hand corner of the document bar)
Hmm ... yep I had tried that ... here is what I see:
How can I get that little folded-paper icon to OPEN UP and show me its text?
TIA for your help!
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
I think the NKJV is also based on the the TR which is one reason I would never use it.
Hi George, any proof that the NKJV is based on the TR? I am happy with my NKJV,AV,NASB,ESV & many more literal translations. I do not want to start a war here, i just want to get the right info. Thanks
Sir T.
The best evidence is straight from the horse's mouth. This is from the Preface to the NKJV
The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the side reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts (see “Popup Notes”).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Hey Guys,
We have really gotten off the subject of this thread. This is blowing my email up, so please move this to another thread. My original question has been exhausted and it seems that we have more calvinist here than non. So my question has been answered. Thank you very much.
Michael please forgive me but this is sort of hilarious. I and many others have made a lot of PLEAS to L to provide alternative folders in the forum for long discussions, so that it would be easy to "uncheck" those feeds.
Yes, yes YES it DOES clutter up the inbox, don't it???
But think about it ... the initial post is in fact, intentional or not, what opened up this particular can of worms. I wonder how many OTHER people had to wade thru the gazillion back and forth inbox postings who were NOT interested in the conversation at all.
It's sort of funny to see one of the primary participants complain of the postings AFTER their interest wanes.
This is NOT intended as a criticism of your comment ... hey, I'd like to say that about a LOT of threads ... ones that I did not start or participate in ... but what's the use? No one is listening.
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
it seems that we have more calvinist here than non.
Hi Michael
There
are 1,743 users on this forum. Just wonderng how you were able to come
up with believing that most users are Calvinists. Did you get many
responses privately? Second, could you please help us to understand
the number in terms of percentage? I assume in your world there are
only two categories: Calvinists and non-calvinists. If you have other
categories, that would be fine. Some of us actually think there are
more categories. But regardless of whether you have two categories or
more, it would be helpful I am sure to some of us if you could share
your findings more exactly. You have helped us to establish that there
are more calvinists on this forum. Could you now give us the
percentage? I think it would be most appreciated.0 -
It was all relevant, thanks for taking the time to respond.
Ted
The whole thread was NOT pointless but it was, as a former US President said, " a thousand points of light." I've learned half a dozen tidbits in this one. Thanks to Michael, Ted and all the rest.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct.
Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate.
You may want to go back and check your notes
You may wish to read some more authoritative material and actually take some notes to which you would then be able to refer.
Erasmus, Desiderius (1466–1536), ‘Roterodammensis’ or ‘Roterodamus’, humanist. There has been debate about the date of his birth. He was probably the (illegitimate) son of Rogerius Gerardus. Christened ‘Herasmus’; he took in adult life the name of ‘Desiderius’ as a Latinized form of ‘Erasmus’, itself a supposed Greek equivalent of his baptismal name. of Alexandrinus to England (only 16 years after the release of the Authorized [King James] Version), this codex was the first early ms of the Gk Bible to be well-known and consulted by scholars. The interest that resulted prompted a search for mss of the Bible, especially of the NT, which has lasted for over 3 centuries.
Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (559). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.This codex comes from the Sinai, where it was preserved until the last century in St. Catherine’s monastery, which is situated at the foot of Jebel Musa (Mount of Moses) on which, according to ancient traditions, the Ten Commandments were given by God to Israel. This Gk copy of the Bible is now housed in 4 very different places. Most of it, 347 leaves, are proudly displayed on the 1st floor of the British Library (the British Museum). Forty-three leaves are in the University Library at Leipzig. Fragments of 3 leaves are in Leningrad. These collections were removed from St. Catherine’s by Constantine Tischendorf: the smaller collection in 1844, the fragments and the major part of the codex in 1859.Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1:1074). New York: Doubleday.Codex Vaticanus (Vatican Library, Cod. Gr. 1209, given the letter B and, for the NT, the numeral 03) is one of a small number of extant ancient Greek Bibles containing both the OT and NT (though it never contained any of the books of Maccabees). It has been in the Vatican Library since at least 1475, when it was listed in a catalogue (Ropes 1926: xxxi; cf. Kenyon 1912: 77n.). During the 15th century, it had certain lacunae filled: Gen 1:1–46:26 (copied from the Vatican Codex Chisianus R VI 38, which is numbered 19 in the catalogue of LXX manuscripts); Ps 105:27–137:6; Heb 9:14 to the end, the Pastoral Epistles, and Revelation (this addition is listed separately amongst NT manuscripts as minuscule 1957). Certain embellishments were added at the same period. In addition to these gaps in the ancient manuscript, part of a leaf (containing 2 Kgdms 2:5–7, 10–13) has been torn away. It has been suggested by Skeat (1984: 463) that B was brought to Rome from Constantinople as a gift by the Greek delegation to the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438–39, after a hasty restoration. Attempts to link the manuscript with Cardinal Bessarion and with S Italy are rightly rejected by Skeat (1984: 454–55), following Šagi.Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1Doubleday.
Codex Alexandrinus is a 5th century Gk codex containing both testaments. Because of the early arrival :1074). New York:
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1:1069). New York: Doubleday.Note Erasmus' dates and those of the appearance of these manuscripts then compare them with 1611. While Codex Vaticanus was in the Vatican library prior to this time, it was relatively unknown and not generally available.george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I happen to have a copy of the NKJV translation handy. It's got a long preface ... but on the fifth page (in this printing), after reciting a long and interesting history of translation principles used in relation to the KJV, the eighth paragraph under the heading "New Testament Text" says:
"In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority-Text variant readings in the center reference column. Although these variations are duly indicated in the center-column notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text:"
In my opinin the preface to the NKJV is one of the best of its type in explaining not only where its sources came from, but also the intent and mechanisms the translators used.
I'm not offering an opinion here about which text is better or worse. Just wanted to give you info from "the horse's mouth". There is a lot more avail in the hardcopy.
Thanks Jim - eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text. So 15% is not the same Hmmm. Ken seems to be on the right track & i will read my hard copy. Thanks for the lead.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
Read the section labelled "The New Testament" (unless you are also interested in the text of the OT).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
Read the section labelled "The New Testament" (unless you are also interested in the text of the OT).
Hi, George:
If you check the past posts, somewhere amidst the snow-flurry in this thread ... you'll see I actually manually typed out sections from the NJKV intro from both the NT and the OT sections. I have read them repeatedly, and was trying to encourage others to do the same
However, maybe you can help ... I cannot seem to get ANY part of that intro to appear within Libronix ... I posted a screenshot. Do you have any clue what may be preventing it?
Thanks!
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
Read the section labelled "The New Testament" (unless you are also interested in the text of the OT).
George,
Take a look at the graphic Jim provided; he is having a technical problem, he selects the text in the Content Pane for Prefece and gets Gen 1.
God bless you and keep you,
Ken
0 -
The best evidence is straight from the horse's mouth. This is from the Preface to the NKJV
The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the side reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts (see “Popup Notes”).
Thanks George.
Sir T.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I'm probably missing something really obvious ..
Toggle Contents Pane? (the little icon in the upper right hand corner of the document bar)
Hmm ... yep I had tried that ... here is what I see:
How can I get that little folded-paper icon to OPEN UP and show me its text?
TIA for your help!
Jim i have the same problem. it just will not open up!
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Note Erasmus' dates and those of the appearance of these manuscripts then compare them with 1611. While Codex Vaticanus was in the Vatican library prior to this time, it was relatively unknown and not generally available.
Yet we have corrispondence where Erasmus is consulting Bombasius concerning Codex Vaticanus [:)]
0 -
I figured it out.
The reason that the Intro info was not appearing was that I had checked "Text Only" in the View menu.
Unchecked, all appears as it should.
Sorry about the confusion.
=============
Redeeming the time (Eph.5:16+Col.4:5) ... Win 10, iOS & iPadOS 16
Jim Dean0 -
There are 1,743 users on this forum. Just wonderng how you were able to come up with believing that most users are Calvinists. Did you get many responses privately? Second, could you please help us to understand the number in terms of percentage? I assume in your world there are only two categories: Calvinists and non-calvinists. If you have other categories, that would be fine. Some of us actually think there are more categories. But regardless of whether you have two categories or more, it would be helpful I am sure to some of us if you could share your findings more exactly. You have helped us to establish that there are more calvinists on this forum. Could you now give us the percentage? I think it would be most appreciated.
Mark,
Wondered when I would hear from you again!! Not based on anything but the response from the users. Not everyone that wrote here responded directly to the question; however, of the ones that did, there were more Calvinist than non-Calvinst. And I have corresponded to some others on the thread that did not respond directly to the question that I know are Calvinist. "In my world" I am not a follower of John Calvin, I only use the term "Calvinst" for clarification of a system of belief. But the Scriptures taught this centuries before John Calvin or Martin Luther. So I do not measure this on the basis of "how many points" you are. I do not even follow the TULIP that the follwers of Jacob Arminius came up with AFTER the death of Calvin. However, if someone does NOT follow the belief of the Scripture of Radical Corruption, UnConditional Election, Particular Redemption, Effectual grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints, they do not have a consistent view of salvation. Now, I did not say they were not saved, (we are not "hyper"-calvinsist or better yet anti-calvinist) I said that they did not have a consistent view. Either you believe these things or you don't. You cannot be consistent and say, "Well, I hold to two of the five or three of the five, or four of the five". They all work in harmony with each other, And when you remove one, you remove the consistency. When you understand them in light of what the Bible says. So much of the time people have a wrong preception of what they teach because they have just been told by others what they mean and have not studied them for themselves. For example, I attended an ordination service for a non-calvinst once who said that he rejected all five points of calvinism but then turned around and said that He believed in eternal security.......HELLO!!!!!! His teaching was based on a wrong view of this subject, He was told what it was and did not study it for himself.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
I figured it out.
The reason that the Intro info was not appearing was that I had checked "Text Only" in the View menu.
Unchecked, all appears as it should.
Sorry about the confusion.
Thanks - we finally got to the software.[:D] After your suggestion mine is up & running.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
However, maybe you can help ... I cannot seem to get ANY part of that intro to appear within Libronix ... I posted a screenshot. Do you have any clue what may be preventing it?
Not a clue. Have you tried using the "Home" key to move to the top then paging down using the spacebar until you reach the NT section? When was the last time you did an Update? I seem to recall that the NKJV was included in one or two recent updates.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Note Erasmus' dates and those of the appearance of these manuscripts then compare them with 1611. While Codex Vaticanus was in the Vatican library prior to this time, it was relatively unknown and not generally available.
Yet we have corrispondence where Erasmus is consulting Bombasius concerning Codex Vaticanus
Consulting someone regarding a lengthy text by correspondence in a day when there wasn't even a Pony Express yet is not the same as having it before your eyes. First of all, the material discussed is going to be severely limited in amount and extent. Secondly, it will be limited to those areas where E. or B. think it of interest which may not be the actual areas of importance. Unless B. sent E. a Xerox of Vaticanus, it doesn't cut any ice.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
As I understand it, the starting text is Erasmus compilation of the texts that were considered correct.
Not correct. Erasmus compiled his Grk NT from the manuscripts he had available. Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus plus many, many others were not available. Also, the science of textual criticism had not yet been developed so the tendency was to choose those texts which seemed to lie behind the Vulgate.
You may want to go back and check your notes
Just a matter of curiosity. Why do you apparently assume that Erasmus was a better textual critic than Westcott & Hort or Aland & Aland or Bruce Metzger or even Bart Ehrmann? [Ehrman is a first rate text critic though since he has become an agnostic he seems to like to tweek conservatives and thus states correct things in very provocative ways.]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Just a matter of curiosity. Why do you apparently assume that Erasmus was a better textual critic than Westcott & Hort or Aland & Aland or Bruce Metzger or even Bart Ehrmann?I prefer the text that Erasmus chose; it fits what I personally believe, I am not a big fan of the Alexandrian texts.
Note: Erasmus did not just casually inquire Bombasius about his personal opinion; he asked specific technical questions and Bombasius supplied transcripts (Xerox copies).
0 -
Just a matter of curiosity. Why do you apparently assume that Erasmus was a better textual critic than Westcott & Hort or Aland & Aland or Bruce Metzger or even Bart Ehrmann?I prefer the text that Erasmus chose; it fits what I personally believe, I am not a big fan of the Alexandrian texts.
Note: Erasmus did not just casually inquire Bombasius about his personal opinion; he asked specific technical questions and Bombasius supplied transcripts (Xerox copies).
In other words, you first have what you believe then you pick a text to support it. Is that about right?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
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,
KenKen
I asked for the source of your information so that I could check it for myself. I have only heard that charge from Peter Ruckman, but even then without documentation. I am not interested in what the defenders of the KJV only position have said. I want the Church Fathers statements that the documents behind the Critical Text sought to bring Arian doctrine into the Scripture. I am not seeking a debate, I just want the source of your facts.
Jack
0 -
Someone will prob ask about OT texts ... here is an extract from the preface of the NKJV about that:
"For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Bilbia Hebraica, with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. The Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testment and the Latin Vulgate were also consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resource of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves. In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text. Significant variations are recorded in the center reference column."
In my opinion, which is worth very little in these areas, it appears that this group of translators have tried to "duplicate" the "mindset and approach" of the original KJV group, as if that group was doing their work TODAY, with the additional info that is now available. That's just my impression, from reading thru the entire preface ... I'd encourage y'all to do that.
I hope this has been helpful.
I have been more than educated by this thread - Thanks
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I want the Church Fathers statements that the documents behind the Critical Text sought to bring Arian doctrine into the Scripture. I am not seeking a debate, I just want the source of your facts.
I do not believe this is possible based on the way it is written; the term Critical Text did not exist at the time of the Church Fathers, I may have misspoke.
0
