Logos Focus
Comments
-
Erhman is a first rate critic indeed, but he wastes waaaay much time, in my opinion, on these "provocative books".
Now as for the thread.. I do believe it has run its course[:)]
0 -
In other words, you first have what you believe then you pick a text to support it. Is that about right?
Not exactly; what I believe existed before the Critical Text
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Ken Avery wrote
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.
end quote
Sometimes Safari refuses to quote from the previous post. Perhaps the Browser has become weary with this thread .
I asked for a refrence of any Church Father rejecting the DOCUMENTS behind the Ciritical Text. It really does not matter; I was simply curious as to how this belief originated.
Jack0 -
Does anyone believe in the inerrency of scripture? Does anyone believe in the infallible word of God? I suppose to a degree that many people are dogmatic. I'm guilty. I often wonder if we are trying to strain a nat. Sometimes I think we sound like the scribes and pharisees. I know that "Truth" is very important to the calvinist and I glean a lot from reformed doctrine, whether sermons or papers. One thing is for sure, I believe many on this forum are in search of the "Truth". I find myself concerned about texts, but I have heard that doctrinally speaking...something like 95% or greater in agreement when comparing overall texts. Interestingly, some people are left-brained and others are right-brained. My church uses NKJV and the older ones hang on to KJV, but I prefer NASB or ESV because not only are they good english versions, they simply read EASIER for me. The NKJV seems so wordy. I prefer KJV to NKJV. Anyway, I read more versions than those listed above and I feel that God reveals the same message no matter what version I read (there is at least 1 exception to this rule..the message is a bad version). True enough, I start with my favorite versions.
0 -
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
Did I mention that my main interests are Old Testament, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?
What does that have to do with the question regarding the text of the NT? I also happen to be interested in those areas, but as a Christian I cannot fail to also be interested in the NT. Do you thereby mean that you are not a Christian? That would be your choice and doesn't need defending, but then I would not expect you to be expressing a preference for the TR.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
The Critical Text is based on Greek Texts that were rejected because they came out of the Arian controversy;
Never heard this particular line of argument before. Could you give me some references? Thanks.
Ah, reading further I see some discussion on the point but I'd still like some proof. On another point, I hope that what all Christians believe precedes the writing of the New Testament - afterall isn't the pattern (1) the Good News as lived by Jesus Christ (2) the apostles' teaching (3) the written teachings? (with some overlaps of course).
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 -
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 tried the google and found very fascinating and very wrong information - wrong in the sense of abuse of statistics and wrong in the sense of unsupportable assertions:
My favorite of the first three entries: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/ "
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd
centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th
and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?
The answer is because
of the following:-
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of
the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also
called the Majority Text. -
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions,
additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. -
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the
Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the
Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200
years before the Minority Texts (like
Vatican and
Sinai) favored by the
Roman
Catholic Church. -
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the
86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers. -
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and
unbelief. -
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the
fundamental
doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis,
the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's
miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the
cleansing power of his blood! -
Textus Receptus was
(and still is) the enemy of the
Roman Catholic Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind."
Ummmmm, let me see - the Old Latin Vulgate the epitome of Catholic versions is an enemy of the Catholics ... Or how about the useful statement "Textus Receptus is untainted with Vedic philosophy and unbelief"? (oops did I modify it a bit to display it's idiocity without a context?) And I'll bet all the manuscripts agree with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers writings [and by the way, why are the Catholic
and Orthodox early church fathers' quotations important for
establishing the validity of an anti-Catholic book?]. It is unfortunate that such logical drivel is common on the web ... so much so that I did not have the patience to find a site that presented the evidence for the TR is a well-reasoned argument. My concern is that our educational system - secular or religious - rarely teaches enough logic and rhetoric to not be swayed by such logic drivel. I would genuinely like to see the case for the TR; there are reasonable people who hold that position for, I assume, reasonable reasons ... if I can only find them.I would also hope that products like Logos that allow us to easily compare manuscripts and translations will help us overcome the gap in our education and assist us in building a common vocabulary for discussing Biblical issues that promotes genuine communication and understanding.
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 -
-
How can I get that little folded-paper icon to OPEN UP and show me its text?
My version of NKJV shows the Preface OK. About Resource states it is 2009-05-11T22:51:49Z. Try Libronix Update to see if you have the latest version, or the resource update script http://www.logos.com/media/update/ResourceAutoUpdate.lbxupd.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Here is what the NKJV says under the heading of New Testament:
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 popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup 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.
The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.Surprisingly, the NKJV reads like the NIV.
Your AV will be based on the Beza TR.
The NKJV I am not sure how they satisfied their claim; I know what they say; though, it is not obvious when comparing texts with the AV and the NIV, it reads more like the NIV.
My hard copy NKJV states:
Copyright 1984 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version 1982.
Its Preface differs in many places from that of the Libronix version. In place of the part quoted by Ken, the hard copy says:
"In light of these developments, the New King James New Testament
has been based on the Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version. Readers may be assured that textual debate does not affect one in a thousand words of the Greek New Testament. Furthermore , no established doctrine is called in question by any doubts about the correct reading in this or that text. The Christian can approach his New Testament with confidence."The "developments" it refers to are much the same as the "facts" of the Libronix version, acknowledging the recent history of the Critical (Alexandrian) and Majority texts but clearly emphasising "the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought". The statement from the Libronix version that "the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament" seems to be an attempt to de-emphasise the above statement that "the New King James New Testament
has been based on the Received Text", whilst actually succeeding in being misleading!To me it is clear that the NKJV is based on the TR every bit as much as the KJV whilst acknowledging where other Greek texts (Critical or Majority) differ significantly.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
M. J. wrote: "Ummmmm, let me see - the Old Latin Vulgate the epitome of Catholic versions is an enemy of the Catholics ... Or how about the useful statement "Textus Receptus is untainted with Vedic philosophy and unbelief"? (oops did I modify it a bit to display it's idiocity without a context?) And I'll bet all the manuscripts agree with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers writings [and by the way, why are the Catholic and Orthodox early church fathers' quotations important for establishing the validity of an anti-Catholic book?]. It is unfortunate that such logical drivel is common on the web ... so much so that I did not have the patience to find a site that presented the evidence for the TR is a well-reasoned argument. My concern is that our educational system - secular or religious - rarely teaches enough logic and rhetoric to not be swayed by such logic drivel. I would genuinely like to see the case for the TR; there are reasonable people who hold that position for, I assume, reasonable reasons ... if I can only find them.
I would also hope that products like Logos that allow us to easily compare manuscripts and translations will help us overcome the gap in our education and assist us in building a common vocabulary for discussing Biblical issues that promotes genuine communication and understanding."
Peace and Joy to you, M.J.! *smile*
You and your sharings with the forum are truly appreciated!
Yours in Christ,
.... Mel
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
To me it is clear that the NKJV is based on the TR every bit as much as the KJV whilst acknowledging where other Greek texts (Critical or Majority) differ significantly.
This appears to be true; I just looked up Rev 22:14 and Rev 5:9 and they, indeed, do use the TR. I have not gone thru the exhastive list of 3,000 or so differences; though, 2 for 2 is preatty good [:D]
0 -
I asked for a refrence of any Church Father rejecting the DOCUMENTS behind the Ciritical Text. It really does not matter; I was simply curious as to how this belief originated.
I have nothing; though, if you have the time you could probably, indirectly, prove a very important point. A related claim is that the Church Fathers used the TR and not the CR (I know, the CR did not exist so I will refer to the text in question (the stuff that is different between the TR and the CR) as the Alexandrian Texts).
Back to the point; knowing which text the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers used, TR or Alexandrian, would go a long way to proving which text was used buy the common man. It appears to me, that this should be testable and provable.
God bless you and keep you,
Ken0 -
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
Did I mention that my main interests are Old Testament, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?
What does that have to do with the question regarding the text of the NT? I also happen to be interested in those areas, but as a Christian I cannot fail to also be interested in the NT. Do you thereby mean that you are not a Christian? That would be your choice and doesn't need defending, but then I would not expect you to be expressing a preference for the TR.
Absolutly fascinating answer; from the little I have gatherd, the core argument by the AV folks is that the Alaxandrian text deny the diety of Jesus Christ.
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
Before what? What I believe did not exist before what?
0 -
This appears to be true; I just looked up Rev 22:14 and Rev 5:9 and they, indeed, do use the TR.
NKJV has text the same as KJV in Rev 5:4, 5, 6 and 10 (us instead of them) + 22:14 whilst noting that they are variants.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
I asked for a refrence of any Church Father rejecting the DOCUMENTS behind the Ciritical Text. It really does not matter; I was simply curious as to how this belief originated.
I have nothing; though, if you have the time you could probably, indirectly, prove a very important point. A related claim is that the Church Fathers used the TR and not the CR (I know, the CR did not exist so I will refer to the text in question (the stuff that is different between the TR and the CR) as the Alexandrian Texts).
Back to the point; knowing which text the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers used, TR or Alexandrian, would go a long way to proving which text was used buy the common man. It appears to me, that this should be testable and provable.
God bless you and keep you,
KenThere are frequently notes regarding such in the apparatus of the NA27.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
Before what? What I believe did not exist before what?
Either you aren't familiar with the designations of the documents or you are being disingenuously dense. A, B and א designate Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus respectively.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
I asked for a refrence of any Church Father rejecting the DOCUMENTS behind the Ciritical Text. It really does not matter; I was simply curious as to how this belief originated.
I have nothing; though, if you have the time you could probably, indirectly, prove a very important point. A related claim is that the Church Fathers used the TR and not the CR (I know, the CR did not exist so I will refer to the text in question (the stuff that is different between the TR and the CR) as the Alexandrian Texts).
Back to the point; knowing which text the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers used, TR or Alexandrian, would go a long way to proving which text was used buy the common man. It appears to me, that this should be testable and provable.
God bless you and keep you,
KenKen
I don't believe the Church Fathers had a TR; the oldest one in my library is dated 1550.
To check every reference to Scripture from the many Church Fathers would be a formidable task. I don't have that much curosity. Those who make these assertions do not appear to have made such a search either. Like so many assertions on both sides of the KJV/TR debate, this is an unproven myth that should not be used without the documentation to back it up. Peter Ruckman made this claim decades ago, but no one has presented the evidence that gives me any reason to believe it.
Ken, you stated the claim that the documents behind the Critical Text were rejected by the Church Fathers because they attempted to insert Arian doctrine in Scripture. it it is "testable and provable", then the person making the claim should present the evidence. In fact, I fail to see any trace of Arian doctrine in any translation based upon the Critical Text.
If you were only stating the claims of the KJV proponents and not your own position, please accept my apology for misinterpreting your post. In this area (Piedmont NC), I hear many wild claims from this group without any evidence to back up the assertions.
Jack
0 -
I asked for a refrence of any Church Father rejecting the DOCUMENTS behind the Ciritical Text. It really does not matter; I was simply curious as to how this belief originated.
I have nothing; though, if you have the time you could probably, indirectly, prove a very important point. A related claim is that the Church Fathers used the TR and not the CR (I know, the CR did not exist so I will refer to the text in question (the stuff that is different between the TR and the CR) as the Alexandrian Texts).
Back to the point; knowing which text the Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers used, TR or Alexandrian, would go a long way to proving which text was used buy the common man. It appears to me, that this should be testable and provable.
God bless you and keep you,
KenThere are frequently notes regarding such in the apparatus of the NA27.
There is one more step I left out; it is important to note the Apostolic Father's or Church Father's position, is it TR or Alexandrian. What they quote should be influenced by what they believe; they all did not believe the same.
0 -
This thread has had more viewers and more posts than almost any other thread that has been posted on this forum. So much for you all that "jumped on me" for asking the original question about Calvinism. It seems to me that the majority of the people on this thread enjoy debating, or you just like debating things that you like to debate. I noticed that Jack is back after accusing me of not reading anything but people who agree with me (I addressed that in an earlier posts) and saying that he would not comment on this thread. He has been a continual contributor on this subject. Do not make assumptions about people who want to discuss things that you are uncomfortable about, Jack, while you are willing to debate other subjects. Again, it seems that the majority of the people on this forum enjoy this "useless" debate. But I think it has run its course. Enjoy, boys!!
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
But what you believe didn't exist before A, B or א, did it? Why not one of them? Any one of them would be better than the TR.
Before what? What I believe did not exist before what?
Either you aren't familiar with the designations of the documents or you are being disingenuously dense. A, B and א designate Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus respectively.
I am sticking with my original answer:
Not exactly; what I believe existed before the Critical Text
I study starting from the front of the book and work my way forward; so far, what I believe is captured in the first two centuries of the Christian era. For me, the NT is like a Midrash on the Tanakh. Kind of like the first five books of Moshe are more important than the books that follow (the Prophets then the Writings); you will find mistakes corrected in the margins of the non-torah books, like Isaiah; though, the Torah was more meticulously copied.
For me the NT explains the OT and the NT cannot contradict the Tanakh because the Tanakh came first; in other words, if I find a contradiction between the OT and one of the Greek texts, I assume the Greek text that agrees with the OT is correct.
I find the Gospels in the Tanakh. For me, this is the most reliable and most important text because this was the Bible of the early Christians, not the NT in any form of Greek.
God bless you and keep you,
Ken0 -
This thread has had more viewers and more posts than almost any other thread that has been posted on this forum. So much for you all that "jumped on me" for asking the original question about Calvinism. It seems to me that the majority of the people on this thread enjoy debating, or you just like debating things that you like to debate. I noticed that Jack is back after accusing me of not reading anything but people who agree with me (I addressed that in an earlier posts) and saying that he would not comment on this thread. He has been a continual contributor on this subject. Do not make assumptions about people who want to discuss things that you are uncomfortable about, Jack, while you are willing to debate other subjects. Again, it seems that the majority of the people on this forum enjoy this "useless" debate. But I think it has run its course. Enjoy, boys!!
Michael,
Once again I wonder why in the world your original post matters. Does it matter how many guys named "Frank" are currently driving down Interstate 101? Not unless you plan on personalizing all the road signs.
If your motive was to disrespect people, I guess you did well.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Once again I wonder why in the world your original post matters. Does it matter how many guys named "Frank" are currently driving down Interstate 101? Not unless you plan on personalizing all the road signs.
If you motive was to disrespect people, I guess you did well.
Well, Matthew, why do all the posts about versions matter? Both are theological discussion, but obviously you are uncomfortable about the one that I brought up. I disrespected no one, I simply pointed out fact! My tone in my previous post as well as all my post have been much more curtious than your last one. It doesnt matter to me who is a calvinist and who is not, just like it doesnt matter to me who uses what translation or what Greek text your views fall back on. So I guess, if I use your argumentation, I could say that the discussions that you have been engaging in the last two day, Whats the point!!!!! But I will not use your process of argumentation, because you do not apply the same rules to both sides. Mine has no point because you seem to be uncomfortable with it, but others are not. Do not put people down and make assumption based on your comfort level. I believe that both conversations can be very beneficial when handled in a godly fashion. But this proves my point that I made to my Church this last Wednesday night service, "some of the most ungracious people in the world are Christians that do not agree with you". How Sad!!!!
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
TeeHee. [:D]
You just finished insulting Jack!
I am more than comfortable talking about Calvinism & manuscripts. It just resembles a fight in the sandbox how some people have to have a census to feel secure in their standing.
"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (1Chronicles 21:1, KJV)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
This thread has had more viewers and more posts than almost any other thread that has been posted on this forum. So much for you all that "jumped on me" for asking the original question about Calvinism. It seems to me that the majority of the people on this thread enjoy debating, or you just like debating things that you like to debate. I noticed that Jack is back after accusing me of not reading anything but people who agree with me (I addressed that in an earlier posts) and saying that he would not comment on this thread. He has been a continual contributor on this subject. Do not make assumptions about people who want to discuss things that you are uncomfortable about, Jack, while you are willing to debate other subjects. Again, it seems that the majority of the people on this forum enjoy this "useless" debate. But I think it has run its course. Enjoy, boys!!
Michael
You seem to have misinterpreted my earlier post. I said I would have no more to say on the original subject of this thread. When the thread changed direction, I felt free to rejoin the discussion. I posted because I genuinely wanted to know the basis for Ken's declaration. I do not wish to debate with Ken; all I want is information.
The Calvinist /Arminian debate was a frequent visitor to the newsgroups, and those discussions were sometimes rather heated.
Jack
0 -
It just resembles a fight in the sandbox how some people have to have a census to feel secure in their standing.
I am not sure how I started to insult, much less finished, You have a wild imagination, Matthew. How ridiculous that I need a census. What I believe is based on the text on the Bible and would discuss it even if I was the only one. Again, I was simply trying to see the views of the majority of the users because Logos has added alot of reformed writers lately and I thought that maybe it was due to the fact that people were asking for them. Which would leave me to believe that there are a lot of reformed users. That was my only reason, I do not need a census. But Matthew, I would invite you to discuss our obvious differences in another thread and I do not need a census to do it. But your quote from 1 Chronicles is most wrong and necessary, it seems to me you need to point your comments back to yourself.
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
Jack,
You have my upmost respect, my friend!!!
Michael
Pastor Michael Huffman, Th.A Th.B Th.M
0 -
I posted because I genuinely wanted to know the basis for Ken's declaration. I do not wish to debate with Ken; all I want is information.
Jack,
Here it is; the reason I was hesitant to provide the link, is because, I do not necessarily concur with all of the information on the page and have no desire to defend what is presented. The information was provided as an example of what AV only people are saying.
Sorry I cannot defend this guy; though, here it is: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/which_bible_can_we_trust.htm
My position is to learn the OT; using the NT as Midrash and letting the OT judge the validity of the underlying Greek NT text; I have not documented my findings because I only use this method for distinguishing favorable texts in my personal reading of scripture, it never occured to me that there would be a debate. I assumed people use the Bible of their choice and hope they read it and talk about what they read, learing the way of the father.
God bless you and keep you,
Ken0 -
I was simply trying to see the views of the majority of the users because Logos has added alot of reformed writers lately and I thought that maybe it was due to the fact that people were asking for them. Which would leave me to believe that there are a lot of reformed users.
Another way of looking at the same facts is: Since Logos has already produced Thousands of titles and is just now getting around to our preferred Calvinist works, maybe they aren't as popular as you think.... [:'(] See how easy it is to distort the meaning of statistics when you don't consider the unseen factors? I would just rather say the order and content of the whole Logos library has been chosen by God and leave it at that.
I am not being sarcastic. I really do think it is an awesome thing how God has chosen to use Logos to bless the Church. The current content of Logos is more than I ever dreamed of. The future outlook for Logos is exciting. I doubt Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian, Instrumental vs Non, Feminist or Chauvinist, or whatever label - will successfully censor Logos publications.
Re polls: Only once in these forums has anyone ever said they have changed their basic doctrine by reading the debates. (Although that amazes me, I will have to accept their testimony as given.) I doubt any of us will ever sway another just with fervent intensity. The real benefit comes from iron sharpening iron. The many issues raised will generate more study.
New Poll: How many Logos users are redheads? (Statistics prove that most people with Doctorate degress are NOT redheads.)
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0
