Mark I can try to answer the question if you wish but I am uncertain about how probative that would be. Most debaters on this issue agree that the variations among the Byzantine textual family do not approach the variations of that family with "Aleph", 'B" or "D". We know that the latter manuscripts are those which have given rise to virtually all the new versions as their Greek textual source. The argument revolves around the difference between these manuscripts and the TR and consequently their progeny - modern translations and the KJB respectively. I hope that helps a bit.
Verne

Tom while I understand what you are saying here regarding the importance of training when it comes to making independent judgment on technical matters, your argument ignores a fundamental tenet of the discipline of epistimology. You are arguing that there are things that Gail Riplinger cannot know, unless she has spent decades
of study and training. For that argument to make any sense whatsoever, you are going to have to be far more specific. Remebmer men technically trained and who have all spent years of research on the subject are not unanimous in their judgment so we need to be careful.
If you give it any thought at all Tom. it would be evident to you that a substantial portion of what we know, or at least think we do, is not arrived at by the method your prescribe. This has been the fundamental flaw in much of your argumentation of this issue in my view. Review your epistimology.



Yes the theory is indeed elaborate. She bases much of it on her understanding of what is predicted to happen in the time prior to the return of Christ.
But Tom you have to be aware the view regarding the superiority if the TR is held not only by Gail Riplinger, but also many able men of learning who have argued for that position long before she was born. While I understand your strong feelings about her in particular, she is nothing more than a foot-note in the historty of this debate and you are well-read enough to be fullly aware of that.



I see your point here.
It is certainly true that scientific paradigms do change over time, and with scholarly progress, concepts once accepted as indisputable are shown to be lacking in their ability to explain all the data, or properly predict new findings.
I think it is a grave mistake to in anyway consider textual criticism in the same view we would a hard scientific hypothesis. My own reading suggests this approach is fraught with pitfalls.


I meant that one you quoted in a book commentary.
The exchange between her and her critics has indeed been quite acrimonious and I think quite a poor testimony. I think she was incensed by some of the criticism that was patently unfair. misleading and borderline slanderous. Some of it was indeed legitimate.



No argument here. We have never agreed on the arguments marshalled for advocacy of the idea that the manuscripts underlying modern versions are more accurate than the TR. so far as they resemble the autographs. When I talk about looking at the original languages, that we are looking at some reasonable facsimile of the autographs is presumptive. I also assume that one, without decades of training can make some reliable determination of the quality of the code transfer. If words in the presumed original are missing or different, that can be ascertained without recourse to erudite technical judgments. That is really what the entire discussion is indeed about!
It is evident that the methods of translation is a separate and distinct issue from the source MSS used for the process.
And this is something that we have not really touched on Tom. Even using the TR, it is my opinion that modern translators would not produce anything remotely resembling the KJB.
Times have changed dramatically, and I am not convinced for the better.



Fair enough Tom. I am reading Scrivener and he has some very intersting insight into all this. You should check him out.

 The argument revolves around the difference between these manuscripts and the TR and consequently their progeny - modern translations and the KJB respectively. I hope that helps a bit.
Verne

  Hi Verne!

  I guess that I did not phrase my question clearly, because I didn't mean to ask which text family has the fewest errors.

  Jerome was assigned the task in the 4th century of trying to smooth out the differences in the texts available to him from the Bzyantine family, because the Roman Catholic church sought a consistent Bible they could call their "Authorized version."

 My question is:  How did Jerome, and later Erasmus, make their decisions as to what was original autograph and what was not?

  I raised the Bzyantine family variant readings only to show that these translators had to decide from the available manuscript data what to include or exclude based on their scholarship, not on some kind of theological test, or special divine insight.  This shows that textual criticism must be used, because it is the only means to make the decisions necessary in providing us with a Bible.

  As I already stated, Erasmus, with the TR, was forced by the Roman Catholic church to add a verse in I JN. that didn't occur in any Greek text at all!  Unless one believes that the pure Word of God was preserved in the Roman Catholic Church Papal leadership, vs. the Greek text itself, we are forced to conclude that the TR has some flaws.

  As mostly Evangelical Christians here, we with the Reformers believe that the Bible, not the church, is what is authoritative (sola scirptura).

 It is healthy to test a text family, that was first smoothed out by Jerome, officially sanctioned by the Pope, and added to by subsequent Catholic theologians, via other text families available that were not controlled by Papist scholarship.

  So the question above again, but amplified:  Why exactly do you believe that the KJV is superior?  Do you base your belief on an understanding of the facts of history re. how we received the TR, God's providential care and Divine authority in the Roman Catholic church, or Jerome's and Erasmus's special Divine authority to make correct translation decisions?  

                                                        God Bless,  Mark C.



 

As soon as I am done with this exchange with Mark, I think I will be moving on. I see I did not get any takers on my previous challenge to check the NT use of the word blood. Since so much of Christian theology hinges on the Biblical teaching of propitiation, I had planned on laying out a clear and indisputable case for the systematic assault on this teachng in many new versions. Everything in its own time.
I will cite one final example to illustrate the folly of the  carelessly bandied about notion (obviously by people who do not really know their Bibles) that there are no doctrinal implications to the changes or variant readings we see in some of these versions.

How about the doctrine of inerrancy?


 The KJV -- Mark 1:1-2 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

If those of you who have read this thread do nothing else, please check your Bible and see how the above verse reads.

If the portion in bold face reads in the prophet Isaiah, you will face the following difficulty.
While it is true that Mark 1:3 does indeed cite Isaiah 40:3, verse two is indisputably a reference to Malachi 3:1!

The post powerful tool for the effective study of the Bible is the Bible itself. Its internal witness is self-consistent. This point is critical!
I will say no more. You figure it out.

I leave this topic with a certain feeling of sadness.


There are none so blind, as those who will not see...
Verne

howdy,

Big paper about due.

See Y'all in a few days.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

If  you intend to do serious Bible study, you are gonna need a few tools.
I recommend the following as a basic arsenal:

1.The Word Study Concordance

by George V Wigram and Ralph D. Winter

It is published by Tyndale press anad keyed to the following essential works:

Word Study New Testament
Arndt/Gingrich Greek Lexicon
Moulton & Geden Greek Concordance
Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

2.The Word Study New Testament
which is a companion volume to the above

Add to the above three outstanding works by the peerless editor Spiros Zodhiates:

3. The Complete Word Study Old Testament

4.The Complete Word Study New Testament

5The Complete Word Study Dictionary (NT)

Get busy people!
God richly bless and keep y'all, hear?  
Verne

Dr. Bob Jones III
President, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
Greenville, SC 29614 Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Dear Dr. Jones:

I received your letter to me of March 28, 2000 [See APPENDIX, pp. 20-21, for a copy]. In your letter you have raised a number of issues. I should like to comment on each of them. I hope you have the time to read my comments. I will circulate my response to your letter, along with your letter to me, to as many as would like to read both documents. This document is B.F.T. #2987. Due to the importance of this debate on the topic of Bible texts and translations to all of us Fundamentalists, any future letters to me on this subject must also become Open Public Letters.

1. The Bible Conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville, South Carolina.
We had a wonderful Bible Conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville, March 19-22, 2000. That was the same week as your own Bible Conference. Pastor Don Farmer was the other Bible Teacher.

2. "A Blatant Attack upon BJU"?
You wrote that this Bible Conference was a "blatant attack upon BJU." What is your source for this statement? How do you know this? Were you there? I didn’t see you. I assume you have either the audio or video tapes for you to make this statement. Have you heard the audio tapes? Have you seen our video tapes? My main purpose was to give those in attendance and those listening on the radio and on the Internet all over the world a brief summary of my answer to that dreadful book that you have praised so highly, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (hereafter The Mind of Man). It is true that I mentioned Bob Jones University, some of its teachers, some of its board members, some of its graduates, some of its employees, some of its loyal friends, and even you, Dr. Jones, its president. What I quoted from these individuals, and what I said about them, was factually true. After all, shouldn’t credit be given where credit is due to those who had a hand in producing, printing, publicizing, and recommending this book that is so filled with MIS-INFORMATION?

On other topics, I was very kind to Bob Jones University and on their Fundamental doctrines as a whole. The one subject on which I took decided exception to your position, and that of Bob Jones University, concerned your false and dangerous position on the Bible’s text and translation. As I reminded you in my friendly and commendatory letter to you of March 6, 2000, on recent media attacks on the University, "we differ strongly on the Bible version issue, as we both know." [See APPENDIX, pp. 22-23 for a copy]

In my series, I merely pointed out the truth about the many BJU personnel--including you, the Bob Jones University president--including BJU teachers, BJU board members, BJU graduates, and BJU loyal friends who were responsible for the Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions which is found in The Mind of Man book. Are you still proud of this book written by so many BJU-graduates, board members, teachers, and friends, even with the REVISED STANDARD VERSION on the cover? This is the book you commended highly at the World Congress of Fundamentalists in July, 1999. Here is what one of the copyright holders, committee members, and writers in the book wrote in a letter: "Dr. Bob held up the book and called it ‘the most significant book for Fundamentalism in this decade, no, in this century.’" Is this correctly reported? If so, is this still your opinion of The Mind of Man book ?

On this issue, I believe strongly that Bob Jones University, under the leadership of your grandfather, father, and you, yourself, has been the chief source for Fundamentalists all over the world in the dissemination of many false and erroneous views about the original language texts--especially the Greek New Testament text--as well as the false and erroneous view that Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort were "conservatives," and as Dr. J. B. Williams wrote, are "now with the Lord" in heaven. Bob Jones University is the Fundamentalist fountainhead and source of the exaltation of the heretical Greek Text founded by Westcott and Hort.

If you will look on pages 37-42 of my book which you said someone sent you, Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions, you will see various quotations made by Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort from documented sources, all of which you have in your Bob Jones University library. Do you believe these statements are consistent with Bible believing Fundamentalist theology? Or do you agree with me that these doctrines are not in conformity to the Bible’s teachings? Do you agree with me that these are the views of the apostates of their day and of ours? If so, how can they be "now with the Lord" as your board of trustee member, Dr. J. B. Williams, has written? If you believe these statements (all of which are correctly documented) are in conformity with Fundamental Bible doctrine, then I question your theological judgment as to what is Fundamental Bible doctrine and what is apostate teaching. This false position has infiltrated many of the Fundamentalist institutions around the world. You have lent your influence and name and that of Bob Jones University both to putting Westcott and Hort in heaven and also bowing in worship to their perverted New Testament Greek text.