OT: Some thoughts on the KJV

Page 6 of 9 (174 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last »
This post has 173 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 9 2011 8:11 AM

Welcome, Paul. Matthew seems to be AWOL on this thread. I will respond. Two of your statements seem to be at odds with each other.

Paul :
I often read the forums and have followed this discussion closely.
 
Paul :
I've noticed in different forums out there (and in some churches) that those who particularly honour the KJV (and I understand you are not a KJV-Only" advocate)  come in for criticism and are usually unfairly called to defend themselves. 
If you will indeed read this thread closely, I think you will see that even the folks most vocal in pointing out the errors found in the KJV still see the value of the version, and many say they still consult it. They do not condemn anyone's choice of translations. The problem comes when the radical fringe element (I have not seen any here) attempt to claim the infallibility of the KJV and insist that all other versions are evil and that all who read them are the devil's minions. ... Do the research ... Those factions do exist. That is what is being discussed here. If you have chosen to be offended by that, I, for one, apologize.

God Bless

Posts 175
Silent Sam | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Apr 9 2011 7:24 PM

                                                                               Hmm  HHHMMMmmm~~~ Hmm

Posts 465
Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 6:26 AM

Hi Schezic !   I must admit that I don't see the statements you cite as being at odds with each other - perhaps you should re-read them?  Matthew was spending a fair amount of time responding to very direct questions when the points he was making were quite simple. I thought he responded with grace and tact. 

I'm sure many people will welcome the KJV to their collection of Bibles and include it within their research activity. Yet I guess the problem for those that haven't settled on a particular Bible version is whether they know which one (or all of them) is the Word of God? The "radical fringe element" has at least settled that question and (in my view) that is to their great credit. Sometimes the value of such groups isn't so much in their radical claims - but that they force us to examine ourselves and what we believe. If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know?  Keep well  Paul     

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:27 AM

Paul :

Hi Schezic !   I must admit that I don't see the statements you cite as being at odds with each other - perhaps you should re-read them?  Matthew was spending a fair amount of time responding to very direct questions when the points he was making were quite simple. I thought he responded with grace and tact. 

I'm sure many people will welcome the KJV to their collection of Bibles and include it within their research activity. Yet I guess the problem for those that haven't settled on a particular Bible version is whether they know which one (or all of them) is the Word of God? The "radical fringe element" has at least settled that question and (in my view) that is to their great credit. Sometimes the value of such groups isn't so much in their radical claims - but that they force us to examine ourselves and what we believe. If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know?  Keep well  Paul     

If you profess to believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture, I would think that they would be forced to say that none of them is the Word of God.  How can they be since they are different words?  I would then say that you must read the original.  At least the Muslims are consistent in that.  Of course, I don't have any problem with translations (when I choose to use them) since I would claim that the message is what is inspired and not the words.  Therefore, pick the translation you wish (though I would have my preferences).  They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 297
Schezic | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:33 AM

George Somsel:
They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.
Now, That was a definite maybe. Stick out tongue

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 10:45 AM

George Somsel:
Compare each to the original.  Open the NA27 and compare it with a version.  Open BHS and compare it with a version.  Better yet, just read the original.

Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004. Big Smile (He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. Big Smile

There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.

 

 

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 10:51 AM

Ron Keyston Jr:
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? 

Yes, stay tuned.

David Ames:
 But as Matthew will tell us it is not completely about textual criticism [I.E. there is a big part of the story that we have not yet told – I will let Matthew handle that part]

Yep, I will. Wink

Schezic:
Matthew is still alive. He was not abducted by aliens. He is responding to other threads. I assume he is still compiling an answer for us. Be Patient !!!

Done compiling, now "indexing."

Schezic:
Do the research


And that we will. As soon as it is done indexing.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 10:56 AM

George Somsel:
Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt.  I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions -- being ever careful to portray them in the worst possible light.

This is the same Bart Ehrman who says he lost his faith doing textual criticism. He does not believe any of the Bible manuscripts. Now why would any believer revere and listen to a scholar who denies the Bible came from God?

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:00 AM

Schezic:

George Somsel:
They are all the Word of God if they are accurate translations.
Now, That was a definite maybe. Stick out tongue

Thankful for Logos capabilities to look at original languages along with translations.  Also Thankful for Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament , hoping Lexham Discourse Hebrew Bible Bundle (6 vols.) receives enough pre-orders for publication (would like to see Hebrew with discourse markers open in a panel beside ESV with discourse markers along side Cambridge Authorized Version in another panel).

Matthew C Jones:
My point is there is not one KJV-Only post.   I'm sure glad this thread was not about foot-washing. We might actually offend someone. Surprise

Many years was KJV-Only (much to my wife's chagrin); learning Koine Greek helped me mature.  Concur with George Somsel about reading original languages and comparing English translations to original languages.  All English translations fall short of adequately expressing the rich verbal diversity and intensity in Greek (e.g. John 1:1 "In the beginning was being the Word" lacks some intensity of continuous action associated with imperfect tense).  The historical basis for KJO is God's magnificent blessings on English people doing God's will for several centuries while using an Authorized Version Bible.

Searching Logos Library for "King James" BEFORE 1-3 WORDS only found some results

The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament logosres:bbackcom;ref=Bible.1Jn5.6;off=455

(The trinitarian formula found in the KJV of 1 Jn 5:7 is orthodox but not part of the text. It appears in only three manuscripts—of the twelfth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries—out of the thousands available, placed there by scribes who knew it from the Latin Vulgate, which took it from an early marginal note based on a popular early interpretation of the text. The KJV includes it only because that translation was based on a recension dependent on the third edition of Erasmus’s Greek text; Erasmus included the verse to fulfill a wager, protested it in a note and withdrew it in subsequent editions of the text.)

Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament (1 Jn 5:6). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

The Moody Handbook of Theology logosres:mhndtheo;ref=Page.p_619;off=1879

SUMMARY EVALUATION OF NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM

Neo-fundamentalism may be identified as the modern movement that, while holding to the historic fundamental doctrines of Scripture, has evolved into a movement with different emphases and perspectives. Neofundamentalism has remained true to the historic doctrines of the Christian faith, steadfastly defending those doctrines in pulpits and classrooms. However, although historic fundamentalism has fielded intellectual giants like Robert *** Wilson, W. H. Griffith Thomas, Bishop J. C. Ryle, J. Gresham Machen, and many others, neo-fundamentalism has tended to reject intellectualism and seminary training.

This anti-intellectualism has resulted in aberrations of orthodoxy, particularly seen in the “King James only” movement. Even though early fundamentalists certainly believed in the inspiration of the autographs, some neo-fundamentalists have tended to go further and actually advocate the inspiration of the King James Version, even including it in their doctrinal statements.

Neo-fundamentalism has also tended toward legalism, adding explicit statements regarding behavior to doctrinal statements.

In addition, neo-fundamentalism has also advocated secondary separationism, calling for avoidance of other Christians who do not follow the same rigid standards. In advocating this attitude, neo-fundamentalism has tended toward divisiveness, splitting of churches, and fostering of ill will among genuine Christians. This is an unfortunate commentary on those who otherwise hold to correct doctrine. Ultimately, sound doctrine should issue in life-changing behavior, the relational expression of which must be love (John 13:34–35; 1 John 2:10,11; 3:14). Love is the Christian’s duty even when engaged in conflict with heresy or immorality. The biblical admonitions to love need to be taken seriously, especially where alleged compromise is not in the realm of doctrines central to the faith.

Enns, P. P. (1997). The Moody handbook of theology (619–620). Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:11 AM

Matthew C Jones:

George Somsel:
Compare each to the original.  Open the NA27 and compare it with a version.  Open BHS and compare it with a version.  Better yet, just read the original.

Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004. Big Smile (He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. Big Smile

There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.

 

 

 

You are MOST CONVENIENTLY ignoring certain facts.  In the case of your your cousin's copy of your biography (autobiography), your wife has a nearer relationship to you to be able to adjust the facts as they become known to her so that later information can be more reliable.  In the case of documents, the greater temporal distance from the originals allows for greater corruption (though it does not demand increased corruption).  Bart Ehrman has written regarding the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.  While I disapprove of the obvious tendency Ehrman has to throw bombs, he does speak the truth regarding the facts.  Scribes did tend to improve the grammar and even to adjust the facts to comport with their view of what should have been written.  Therefore, a greater distance in time allows for increased "correction" of the texts.  Furthermore, the monks of St Cathereine's are in the Orthodox tradition which follows the Byz Maj textform.  It is only to be expected that they would support their own tradition (as you support your obviously perverted tradition).  That they regarded א as trash is therefore only to be expected.  Most generally, the older text is the better text though this is not a hard and fast rule.

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:19 AM

Matthew C Jones:

George Somsel:
Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt.  I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions -- being ever careful to portray them in the worst possible light.

This is the same Bart Ehrman who says he lost his faith doing textual criticism. He does not believe any of the Bible manuscripts. Now why would any believer revere and listen to a scholar who denies the Bible came from God?

His rejection of the faith does not change his eyesight nor does it make his thought processes any less correct.  Faith is not knowledge (remember Paul?).  His faith position is revealed in his propensity to state everything in the most provocative terms from the standpoint of the Christian faith.  Nevertheless, he is a careful scholar. 

BTW:  Where do you stand on the question of the Johannine Comma?

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:25 AM

Paul :
The reason is that there is wonderful scholarship out there and writers who enrich us whether or not we agree with them. I may read with horror what Hort and Westcott did in the 19th century or worry about the rationale for accepting particular Greek manuscripts over others as authoritative or squirm in my seat at church as "The Message" is read in place of Scripture etc, but the point is that with the Logos tools I and many others are now empowered to look more closely at these things. 

Thank you Paul. You say what I think better than I am able to!

I have no problem if God uses a Muslim heart surgeon to save my life. I do have a problem reading textual criticism from a scholar who does not even believe the manuscript he touts as the best.

With the awesome capabilities of the Logos Bible software we no longer need the elite scholars to tell us what to believe. We can check for ourselves what the differences are between versions. We can discover the doctrines that are undermined when we change the wording. And we can do all this without getting ordained and with no license (other than the one for the software Big Smile )

Seems like Logos Bible software is helping Tyndale reach even the plow boys, and girls.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:32 AM

George Somsel:
While I disapprove of the obvious tendency Ehrman has to throw bombs, he does speak the truth regarding the facts.  Scribes did tend to improve the grammar and even to adjust the facts to comport with their view of what should have been written. 

George Somsel:
Furthermore, the monks of St Cathereine's are in the Orthodox tradition which follows the Byz Maj textform.  It is only to be expected that they would support their own tradition

So you cut an agnostic a break while you question the devotee's veracity?

George Somsel:
Most generally, the older text is the better text though this is not a hard and fast rule.

The rules are always flexible when you and I have our own "perverted traditions."

 

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:39 AM

Matthew C Jones:

So you cut an agnostic a break while you question the devotee's veracity?

Yes !

george
gfsomsel

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

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:43 AM

Paul :
 If there is a whiff of sulphur on some Bible versions - wouldn't we want to know? 

Hmmm. Have you been reading Arthur Hort's biography of his father and Wescott's involvement in occult societies at Cambridge? How else would one smell sulphur?  Devil

Now back to "indexing."

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 1228
Ron | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 12:20 PM

Matthew C Jones:

Alexandrian manuscripts are old but age does not constitute correctness. The Ronald Reagan of 1980~1988 was a better thinker than the one of 1996~2004. Big Smile (He was older in 2004, but less correct.) If you discover a 5 year old document on my cousin's computer entitled "Matthew's autobiography" and a recent document on my wife's computer by the same name, which one is likely to be more correct? My wife's computer is in closer geographical proximity than my cousin's. The underlying principle of all textual critics is "Modern scholarship is more reliable than older scholarship." Since by your own admission we do not possess the original autographs, the Byzantine manuscripts must be the more reliable of the two categories. They are the more modern set. Big Smile

There is a reason Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can. The monks who discarded it recognized it for the trash that it is.

Yes Big Smile

Matthew C Jones:
Yes, stay tuned.

Waiting patiently, thanks! Smile

Posts 2796
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 12:22 PM

Matthew C Jones:
   How else would one smell sulfur?  Devil 

Have you checked your email?  there may be a explanation of sulfur there or something worthy of deleting. [one or the other]

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 12:37 PM

George Somsel:
BTW:  Where do you stand on the question of the Johannine Comma?

Keeping in mind that this thread is about the KJV and not the doctrine of the Trinity and the Johannine comma is across several manuscripts and translations, I answer Thee thus:

I accept the Trinitarian perspective because it is in agreement with other scriptues. (Always use the Bible to critique the Bible. Everything else is secondary.) The removal of the Johannine comma would not effect my view of the doctrine. It's inclusion also does not present me with a problem.  But this is not about doctrine, is it?          btw, check out this:  Trinitarian Studies Collection (4 vols.)


The Comma Johanneum is not a problem for me. It's inclusion or exclusion presents no quandry doctrinally. I do believe it is supposed to be there. Smile

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 12:39 PM

copied & deleted.

will read within the hour.

gotta go get my grandkids.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9947
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Apr 11 2011 1:02 PM

Matthew C Jones:
The Comma Johanneum is not a problem for me. It's inclusion or exclusion presents no quandry doctrinally. I do believe it is supposed to be there. Smile

I'm not surprised that you would take that position.  [I didn't ask about your doctrine of the trinity but about a text]  Even the Byz Maj text doesn't support the Johannine Comma.  It was in the Vulgate, but Erasmus only put it into his NT when someone phonied up a Greek manuscript to show him that it was in Greek.  One's theological position isn't really pertinant to other aspects of his life.  I would rather have "Dr. Death" Kevorkian as a physician than Joe the Plumber (even if it can be shown that he is very pious [I don't know about that]) because he does know medicine even though he is evil.  As Dooyeweerd maintained in his Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, there are various irreducible aspects to reality such as energetic, numerical, physical, etc.  One's faith determines how those are directed, but it does not supply a deficiency in any of those aspects.  I will therefore defer to Ehrman's judgment in his area of expertise, but not for his statements which go beyond the evidence.

george
gfsomsel

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

Page 6 of 9 (174 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > ... Last » | RSS