Logos Focus
Comments
-
JimDean said:
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 -
JimDean said:
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 -
JimDean said:
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 Somsel said: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 -
George Somsel said:JimDean said:
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 -
George Somsel said:
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 -
JimDean said:Ken Avery said:JimDean said:
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 -
George Somsel said: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 -
MarkSwaim said:
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 -
JimDean said:
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 -
JimDean said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:George Somsel said: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 -
Ken Avery said:George Somsel said:Ken Avery said:
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 -
George Somsel said: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 -
Ken Avery said:
George Somsel said: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 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
JimDean said:
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 -
George Somsel said:
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 [;)]
0 -
JackCaviness 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.
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 -
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 -
Ken Avery said:George Somsel said:
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 -
George Somsel said:
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?
0 -
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 -
Ken Avery said:George Somsel said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
-
JimDean said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
Dave Hooton said:
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 -
JackCaviness said:
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 -
George Somsel said:Ken Avery said:George Somsel said:
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.
George Somsel said: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 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:JackCaviness said:
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 -
Dave Hooton said:
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.
Confirmed Rev 1:6 is TR; thus, consistent with 5:9, 10.
0 -
Ken Avery said:
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 -
Ken Avery said:JackCaviness said:
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 -
George Somsel said:Ken Avery said:JackCaviness said:
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 -
George Somsel said:Ken Avery said:
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:
Ken said: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 -
Michael Huffman said:
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 -
Matthew C Jones said:
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 -
Michael Huffman said:
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 -
Matthew C Jones said:
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 -
JackCaviness said:
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 -
Michael Huffman said:
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
