AssemblyBoard
December 03, 2022, 08:47:25 pm *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Re:Modern Translations  (Read 57020 times)
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2004, 04:45:09 pm »


        All said, I am not well enough educated to be at odds with your conclusions, but it is your methods that I think may seem threatening to some.  As one who has always to deal with Adult ADD and dyslexia in myself, as well as anxiety and depression, I can attest that unless you constantly place Jesus Christ in the center of your message, you present an insurmountable quest.

     Please just pray about it-- I have no axe to grind, and certainly no desire to quarrel.  I speak out on behalf of others who suffer as I do, but may not be able to state their case.

God bless,
al


Thanks for the encouragement brother.
I have to constantly check my attitude.
Before the Lord got hold of me, I used to worship the god of forces.
Then he gave me two little girls and turned me into a teddy- bear!  Smiley
I realise that my tone sometimes seems strident Al, but I trust that my heart is in the right place.
I realise that we have to be careful that our zeal be according to knowledge, as the good book instructs us, but I am frankly sometimes surprised at how many of God's people can be so passive and unmoved at some of the sobering matters that have arisen on the BB since its inception. I will pray that God gives wisdom so that my speech be alway seasoned with salt...I do need help in that area I am afraid...
Verne
p.s I think you make a good point about not succumbing to fear on the matter of the corruption of the Biblical text. It seems to me that avoiding that condition has to be predicated on absolute acceptance of God's numerous promises to preserve His Holy Word.
Heaven and earth shall pass away...
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 09:09:17 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2004, 09:23:59 pm »

This is final three posts  of Waite's response to Bob Jones.  While I regret the tone of acrimony that developed between these two men, it nonetheless is exemplary of the kind of inflammatory and ad hominem language that sometime erupts even among men of stature when dealing with strongly held beliefs.

 16. "The Lord Hates Those Who Sow Discord Among the Brethren"? You and your Bob Jones University have for years been the ones who have "sowed discord among the brethren" by your adamant refusal to use the Greek New Testament text that underlies the King James Bible you profess to love. If the Lord truly "hates" those, He must sincerely "hate" you and your Bob Jones University staff that has been "sowing discord" on this subject of the Bibleís text almost from day one of your existence!


17. "I Beg You to Desist"?
I would be happy to "desist" if you, your teachers, and your former students all around the world would "desist" from your and their loud and clear clamoring for the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text. Until this is done, I have no intention of "desisting." I intend to carry the defense of every Word the Lord Jesus Christ caused to write through the Hebrew Masoretic text or the Received Greek text underlying the King James Bible until the Lord calls me Home to Glory. Let me quote something from one of my most respected literary friends, Dean John William Burgon:
"If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that Ďto every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the suní : Ďa time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracingí: a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectively to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard." [Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. vii-viii]

I resonate approvingly with these sentiments. As he, so I refuse to "desist" in what I consider to be the battle for the Bible.
 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 09:59:04 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2004, 09:35:26 pm »

18. "Not Hurting the University But Hurting the Good Name of Christ"?
The "good Name of Christ" is exactly what I am seeking to defend. Far from "hurting" His good Name, I am exalting His Name by exalting and holding to all of His Words. The Lord Jesus Christ said:
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)
I believe very strongly that the Lord Jesus Christ, your Saviour, will be "ashamed of you" when He comes because you and your Bob Jones University have been "ashamed of His Words." I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of all of the Old Testament Hebrew Words in our Bible and all of the New Testament Words in our Bible. I believe those Words are to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Your Hebrew department, with teachers such as Dr. Jaeggli and others, is destroying Christís Words by referring to many of them as "scribal errors." Your Greek and Bible department, under Drs. Custer, Schnaiter, Wisdom, and others, are destroying Christís New Testament Greek words by using the Westcott and Hort kind of text, whether Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society text which changes Christís Words in the New Testament in 5,604 places. One of the precious phrases that you and Bob Jones Universityís Greek text strips away from our Saviourís Words is found in John 6:47 which says, in the King James Bible and in the Textus Receptus Greek text that underlies it:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (KJV)
The Textus Receptus Greek text says this for this verse:
"ajmhVn ajmhVn levgw uJmi'n, oJ pisteuvwn eij" ejmeV, e[cei zwhVn aijwvnion." (SCR)
Your Westcott and Hort kind of text (the Nestle-Aland) says this for this verse:
"ajmhVn ajmhVn levgw uJmi'n, oJ pisteuvwn . . . e[cei zwhVn aijwvnion." (NA26)
This false Greek text used by Bob Jones University teaches in John 6:47 that you can have "everlasting life" by merely "believing." In that false Greek text of the Gnostics from Egypt you need not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Notice how your favorite New American Standard Version sold in the Bob Jones University bookstores treats this verse:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes . . . has eternal life." (NASB)
The same is true for the New International Version which quite a few of your graduates are using:
"I tell you the truth, he who believes . . . has everlasting life." (NIV)
John 6:47 is just one of the 356 doctrinal passages where your Westcott and Hort kind of text is teaching false and heretical doctrines by altering the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I deem this an outrage against my Lord and Saviorís Words! And you, Dr. Jones, who have the authority and power as President of Bob Jones University to stop this demeaning and doubting of Christís Words, have done nothing about it and apparently you do not intend to do anything about it. Instead, you merely rail against and castigate Fundamentalist, separatist Baptist pastors such as I am, and others who continue to defend the Words of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour. You have been deceived by your teachers at Bob Jones University and others. It is long overdue for you and all of your teachers to take another fresh, hard, careful look at this issue of the Greek New Testament text. You have apparently not taken the time to dig into this subject for yourself as I have been doing for 29 years, or if you have, you have come up on the wrong side of the issue. I was taught the Westcott and Hort actual text at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1948 through 1953. But when I saw the falsity of this text in 1971, I changed. I have been reading, writing, and studying on this subject ever since. Why donít you do the same?
Have you purchased for yourself and studied thoroughly, for example, each of the five books by Dean John William Burgon? Or have you checked them out of the Mack Library there on your campus and studied them thoroughly? Dean Burgon was a strong Bible conservative, though of the Church of England. The Dean Burgon Society, of which I have been President these past 22 years, has reprinted, all five of these books, namely: (1) Revision Revised; (2) the Last 12 Verses of Mark; (3) the Traditional Text; (4) Causes of Corruption; and (5) Inspiration and Interpretation. I have no reason to believe you have read and studied thoroughly Dean Burgonís writings. He has completely overthrown the falsities both of the text and of the theories of Westcott and Hort . You love, adore, and teach in your Bob Jones University this false text and these false theories. You probably havenít even looked into The Life and Letters of Westcott and The Life and Letters of Hort that are in your library (over 1,800 pages) to see by their very letters their apostasy and heresies in doctrine. You, instead, take the word of Dr. Custer and Dr. Schnaiter that these two doctrinal heretics are conservatives. You, instead, take the word of your board of trustees man, Dr. J. B. Williams, that these two apostates are "now with the Lord." You trust these two apostates and allow Dr. Schnaiter to use Westcottís Commentary on Hebrews as his textbook in your university. You do not stop with using the works of and exalting these two apostates, but you also exalt the editorial work of Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini (one of the nominees for the next Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) on the committee of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that you permit to be used in your Greek classes. You also do the same thing as you exalt the work of the other apostates on the editorial committee of your Nestle-Aland Greek text like Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Matthew Black, and Allen Wikgren. Yet you claim to be a separatist (and I believe that you are)--why, then, are you so inconsistent, if not hypocritical, in the use of such apostates and others in the area of Biblical textual criticism?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 09:56:25 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2004, 09:37:22 pm »

19. "My Plea Does Not Suggest That You Should Stop Believing Anything You Believe About the Text"?
Iím glad I have your permission to do this, because I am going to do just that. Part of my "believing anything I believe about the text" is to crusade valiantly, honestly, and truthfully for the truth which I believe in. The second part of this is to crusade valiantly, honestly, and truthfully against the untruth and to expose what I consider to be falsehood. This, quite honestly, means that I will continue my exposure of your own personal false teaching and the false teaching by your teachers at Bob Jones University on the issue of the Bibleís texts and translations.
While, on the one hand, I will continue to recommend Bob Jones University for those who wish to take up nursing, fine arts, business, and other things (for doing this, some will no doubt accuse me of being inconsistent), yet, on the other hand, I will continue to warn men who are preparing for the Lordís work at home or abroad, to avoid taking their work at Bob Jones University. I wouldnít want to see them destroyed and ruined in the area of Bible texts and translations by going to your university for this training.
I have talked through the years to numerous pastors and students who have been absolutely ruined by Bob Jones Universityís espousal of the heretical and false Westcott and Hort Greek text which brings shame on the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible for which you profess to have "no disrespect." While you may "use" the King James Bible in chapel for "window dressing" and what is known as "protective coloration," you do not defend the King James Bible. This is why you sell the New American Standard Version in your bookstores. This is why countless graduates are using and preaching from that NASV which is based upon the false Westcott and Hort text they were taught at Bob Jones University. This is also why you sell James Whiteís book (The King James Only Controversy) in your bookstores. The very essence of Biblical Fundamentalism is twofold: (1) stand for all the Biblical truth without apology; and (2) stand against and expose all that is contrary to Biblical truth. In this present instance, your Bob Jones Universityís adamant insistence on teaching the Westcott and Hort kind of Greek text which is contrary to Biblical truth paints the following picture: Your Westcott and Hort kind of text differs from the Textus Receptus by my actual count in 5,604 places. It completely omits a total of 2,886 Greek words from the true Biblical text. It teaches false and heretical doctrine in 356 places. That is certainly not a pretty picture so far as I am concerned.
20. "You Should Desist in Maligning and Misrepresenting Those Who . . . Donít See These Things Exactly as You Do"?
First of all, I am not "maligning" ["to speak evil of, defame, slander"] others. I speak the truth about others who differ with me. If you can find any untruth (not merely a difference of opinion) in my book someone sent you (Fundamentalist MIS-INFORMATION on Bible Versions), I would be happy to correct it in the next printing. I deal in documentation and facts, not in "maligning." If you want a lesson in "maligning" and "slandering" and libeling me and others, you should re-read the article by your co-originator of The Mind of Man book, Dr. James B. Williams. It is the Introduction (The Issue We Face.) It is found on pages 1-11.
In the second place, I donít deal in "misrepresentation." I deal in facts and truth. I found at least 118 items of "MIS-INFORMATION" in your Mind of Man book. See if you can find that many in my own book or books. In each case, I have quoted the words from The Mind of Man book exactly. I have not "misrepresented" your BJU-graduates, board members, teachers., or loyal friends Exact quotation cannot possibly be considered "misrepresentation." Just because I totally disagree with your friendsí positions does not mean I have "misrepresented" what they have written.
There are many other things I might write to you, but I shall forbear to do so. Any response you might make to this Open Public Letter I shall weigh, and if I deem it necessary, I will answer it publicly as I have done with this response, either by means of the radio waves, including short wave and Internet around the world, or by other means.
Sincerely for Godís Words,
DAW/w Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
Bible For Today Baptist Church
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2004, 09:43:12 pm »

I just realised that I did not post Bob Jones original letter.
Here it is:


BOB JONES University
GREENVILLE ∑ SOUTH CAROLINA 29614-00111 ∑
864-242-5100 ∑ ADMISSIONS 1-800-BJ-AND-ME
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
FAX 864-233-9829
March 28, 2000

Dr. D. A. Waite
900 Park Avenue
Collingswood, NJ 08108-3235

Dear Dr. Waite:

Your conference at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville last week was a blatant attack upon BJU an insult to this institution that your children attended.

In addition to that, someone sent me a copy of your diatribe Fundamentalist Misinformation on Bible Versions dedicated to "all the graduates of Bob Jones University who, though they were indoctrinated in the BJU Greek department to accept as genuine the Westcott and Hort kind of text, have forsaken such a text as corrupt and heretical and . . . have now accepted as genuine the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible . . ." This is not only a slap on the face of Bob Jones University, it is also a blatant misrepresentation of what our students were taught here. They're taught no disrespect for the Textus Receptus and certainly not for the KJV. The KJV is all we preach and teach from here. It would be utter stupidity for our Bible department to demean the Textus Receptus while holding in respect the translation from which it was made.

Dr. Waite, why are you so mean-spirited? Why do you vilify your brothers in Christ who believe the Bible just as fervently and defend it just as militantly as you do. You're creating division in the body of Christ that is unwarranted and hurtful. We know that the Lord hates those who sow discord among the brethren (Proverbs 6:16-19).

I beg you to desist. You are not hurting the University, but you are hurting the good name of Christ, a name that I believe you love as much as we do. My plea does not suggest that you should stop believing anything you believe about the text, but that you should desist in maligning and misrepresenting those who love the Bible as much as you do, but who don't see these things exactly as you do.

Very truly yours,
Bob Jones III
President
BJIII:ser


A previous letter from Dr. Waite:


BFT BAPTIST CHURCH
900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108
Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D. Ph.D.

Dr. Bob Jones III
President, BOB JONES UNIVERSITY
Greenville, SC 29614 Monday, March 6, 2000

Dear Dr. Bob,

Just a hurried note to go along with the many hundreds you probably have received concerning your excellent job you did on the Larry King Live TV show which was seen all over the world! The media attack on Bob Jones University was most unfair, but I think the Lord might use it to bring more students your way. It certainly made Bob Jones University a household word around the globe!

Sorry for your recent hospitalization, and hope you regain full strength soon. You accounted yourself strong for the Lord Jesus Christ and for the way of salvation without compromise. This was unlike the appearances from time to time on Larry King's show of James Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham and others.

I recorded the entire program on video tape and made nine copies available to the members of our church to circulate on a rotation basis so all could see it. Yesterday, as I expounded Philippians 1:16-30 (By Life or By Death) I made repeated commendable references to your testimony before Larry King and the world.

Though we differ strongly on the Bible version issue, as we both know, I refuse to refrain from commending a brother in Christ and a Christian Fundamentalist leader when he has done a good job for the cause of the gospel and for all of our Bible believing Christians and churches throughout the world.

May God's continued blessings go with you as you stand up for God's Words and His beloved Son who has saved us by His grace.

Sincerely yours in the bonds of Calvary,
DAW/w Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D.
1 Corinthians 15:58 Bible For Today Baptist Church
Director, The Bible For Today, Incorporated



« Last Edit: October 29, 2004, 11:09:05 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2004, 12:08:46 pm »

Since a  few have asked, here is a small sampling of some of the scholarly
work done by men who love Christ and the Scriptures. I have generally not responded to assertions that only a few scholars agree with men like Waite as the assertion is so clearly borne of ignorance and a failure to truly read widely on the topic. It is generally also true that a cavalier dismissal of the question of the corruption of  N.T texts suggests an absence of any serious study. As I have repeatedly suggested, please do your own reading and study. There are considerably more titles. Reading the work of Burgon alone is in my view quite conclusive.

The King James Version Defended Ė by Edward F. Hills

The Ancient Text of the New Testament Ė Jakob van Bruggen

A New Hearing for the Authorized Version by Dr. Theodore Letis

 The New Testament: Which Text? by Pastor William P. Terjesen

 The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind by Dr. Theodore Letis

 Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism by Dr. Gordon H. Clark

 The NIV: Simply a Bad Translation! by Pastor Richard Bacon

 A Creationist's Defense of the King James Bible by Dr. Henry Morris

 Defending the Words of God by SSM Founder

God bless your labor in His mighty Word....
Verne

p.s as soon as I get a bit of time, I would like to begin a discussion of the Christian doctrine of propitiation.  It is an absolute cornerstone of all that Christians believe, and essential to any true understanding of the nature, means, and effects of redemption. Some of you are going to be uncomfortable with what I say about many modern translations vis a vis this specific topic.
How many of you have heard of John Gill?
I stand in absolute amazement at the abundance of spiritual and intellectual pygmies running around today who have the unmitigated gall to hold themselves somehow superior to such stalwarts of the faith as Calvin and Gill. No wonder the church is in the condition it is in. We have become too spiritually dull to anymore digest the meat of God's Word... Sad
While I may not agree with everything these men taught and believe, I certainly recognize they are orders of magnitude, in every way, beyond any tallking head alive today...
We ought to show a little respect....
They are now also starting to attack men like A.W. Pink in a concession to godless arminianism...what next?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2004, 08:14:47 pm by vernecarty » Logged
Mark C.
Guest


Email
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2004, 03:37:58 am »

Hi Verne,

  Since I was off this week I did take the time to search whom these persons were that you recomended re. the KJV only debate and it was very interesting.

  For Dr. Theodore Letis see link at: www.aomin.org/TLetis.html

  The article provides evidence that this man went from calling "fundamentalist Christians a cult" to now earning a living by speaking to these groups.  More importantly, by searching the site one can understand the arguments of the KJV only folks vs. those who believe that our modern translations are an improved text.
 
  At http://pilgrimpub/burgon.htm you can see why the late Dr. Burgon would not join the society that he is named for, and which is now headed by Dr. Waite.  The article shows how Dr. Waite has taken his views out of context, and that he was not in favor of a KJV only view.

   The KJV only view runs into a glaring problem, as I've mentioned before, as Erasmus who prepared the text that it is based on, used the Latin Vulgate in certain areas because he only had a very small amount of manuscripts from the Bzyantine family.  This is historical fact that cannot be denied.

  It seems that there will always be a small number of those who prefer conspiracy theories as it makes them a member of a special elite insiders group.  

  I was impressed by reading most of these "scholars" that they attempt to demonize all those who do not support them.  They are the ones who "love Christ and honor the Scriptures" and those who do not are evil Satanic conspirators whom are supporting Devil inspired translations!  These are not rational scholary discussions of this issue (in the ones that I read) raised by these KJV only authors.

  Read Bruce Metzger and compare his logical and scholarly tone with these other authors and I think you'll see what I mean.

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 03:52:31 am by Mark C. » Logged
Joe Sperling
Guest


Email
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2004, 04:08:52 am »

As a current member of the "First KJV Only Church of Glendale" I must heartily disagree with the below post. Just last night, as we walked the streets of Van Nuys Blvd, we happened upon a man who said he had been "saved" by reading a copy of the Living Bible Gospel of John.

We explained to this man most vehemently that he could not possibly have been saved while reading that version, as it is not approved by God. we strongly recommended he immediately repent, read the Gospel of John  in the KJV and be rebaptized. The man loudly protested almost to tears, but alas, thus do many of the enemies of true Christianity when confronted with their error.

We then headed back to KJV Bible Ranch and had a bon fire in which we burned over a thousand copies of the NIV version while praying fervently for those still deceived by the errors in this obviously demonic perversion of the true and holy KJV translation. May God rescue them, and all others who do not hold to the only true version of the Bible, and stray into the errors of the "Biblical Scholars wolf pack" of other versions which lead to the very mouth of hell.




 ;Djust kidding
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2004, 07:22:12 am »

As a current member of the "First KJV Only Church of Glendale" I must heartily disagree with the below post. Just last night, as we walked the streets of Van Nuys Blvd, we happened upon a man who said he had been "saved" by reading a copy of the Living Bible Gospel of John.

We explained to this man most vehemently that he could not possibly have been saved while reading that version, as it is not approved by God. we strongly recommended he immediately repent, read the Gospel of John  in the KJV and be rebaptized. The man loudly protested almost to tears, but alas, thus do many of the enemies of true Christianity when confronted with their error.

We then headed back to KJV Bible Ranch and had a bon fire in which we burned over a thousand copies of the NIV version while praying fervently for those still deceived by the errors in this obviously demonic perversion of the true and holy KJV translation. May God rescue them, and all others who do not hold to the only true version of the Bible, and stray into the errors of the "Biblical Scholars wolf pack" of other versions which lead to the very mouth of hell.




 ;Djust kidding

A good muslim friend of my told me in no uncertain terms that he was "saved". I said Oh, really? How did that happen? He told me he got saved by reading the Koran. I guess that makes it true and pure... Smiley
Just kidding...
Verne

p.s. Mark I am glad you took a look.  Don't forget to also read the specific Scriptures adduced and what arguments are made about how the Scripture has been rendered. That is what really counts!
Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2004, 08:48:20 am »


warning....warning.....warning...warning

The evil "Biblical Scholars Wolf Pack" has been at it again in their Satan inspired project of corrupting and discrediting the One True Translation.

Look at what these denizens of the depths have done to the True Translation of Proverbs 26:23.   Shocked

The One True Translation clearly says:

"Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd  covered with silver dross."  

Now, what could be clearer than that?Huh   The true meaning is there plain for all to see, at least all those who have had  the veil removed from their hearts and minds.

Now these "scholars" have been up to their old tricks.  By studying the Ugaritic script to better understand Biblical Hebrew, they have dared to CHANGE the Holy King James Translation to read:

"Smooth words may hide a wicked heart, just as a pretty glaze covers a common clay pot."

What confusion.  What meaningless poppycock!  Truly, this is an advance of the New Age One World One Religion New World Order.

 Wink

Tom M.
Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2004, 03:35:57 pm »


warning....warning.....warning...warning

The evil "Biblical Scholars Wolf Pack" has been at it again in their Satan inspired project of corrupting and discrediting the One True Translation.

Look at what these denizens of the depths have done to the True Translation of Proverbs 26:23.   Shocked

The One True Translation clearly says:

"Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd  covered with silver dross."  

Now, what could be clearer than that?Huh   The true meaning is there plain for all to see, at least all those who have had  the veil removed from their hearts and minds.

Now these "scholars" have been up to their old tricks.  By studying the Ugaritic script to better understand Biblical Hebrew, they have dared to CHANGE the Holy King James Translation to read:

"Smooth words may hide a wicked heart, just as a pretty glaze covers a common clay pot."

What confusion.  What meaningless poppycock!  Truly, this is an advance of the New Age One World One Religion New World Order.

 Wink

Tom M.


Interesting comparison. Are you then saying that these two passages are saying different things Tom?
It seems to me more useful passages for comparison would be some like the following:


1 Luke 9:56
"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them ..." (KJV)

Note: In the NIV these words are absent. Why?

2 Matt 18:11
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (KJV)

Note: In the NIV these words are absent. Why?

3 Col 1:14
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (KJV)

(NIV) "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."



4 Gal 3:17
"... the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ ..." (KJV)

(NIV) " ... the covenant previously established by God ..."


5 Rom 1:16
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ..." (KJV)

(NIV) "I am not ashamed of the gospel ..."


6 John 6:47
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." (KJV)

(NIV) "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."



7 Eph 4:6
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (KJV)

(NIV) "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."



8 Rev 21:24
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it ..." (KJV)

(NIV) "The nations will walk by its light ..."


Mic 5:2
"... out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (KJV)

(NIV) "... out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."



(The Hebrew "olam" means "everlasting". The NIV translators knew it; they correctly translated it "everlasting" in other passages except when it refers to Christ.)



1 1 Tim 3:16
"... God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit ... believed on in the world, received up into glory." (KJV)

(NIV) "He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit ... believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."



2 Phil 2:5,6
" ... Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (KJV)

(NIV) "... Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

etc. etc.

I just love comparisons Tom so keep on posting them. Maybe a bit of insight into the Ugaritic could explain some of the above alterations and omissions do you think?
Oops!...these are all NT changes are they not?
Let me see if I can come up with a few pertinent ones from the OT.  Wink
Verne
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 03:38:48 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2004, 07:51:22 pm »

  The KJV only view runs into a glaring problem, as I've mentioned before, as Erasmus who prepared the text that it is based on, used the Latin Vulgate in certain areas because he only had a very small amount of manuscripts from the Bzyantine family.  This is historical fact that cannot be denied.
We now have thousands of manuscripts and fragments today by which we can assess and compare the texts Erasmus used. This is a very weak argument Mark, yet you keep repeating it as if that makes it valid.

Quote
 It seems that there will always be a small number of those who prefer conspiracy theories as it makes them a member of a special elite insiders group.  

  I was impressed by reading most of these "scholars" that they attempt to demonize all those who do not support them.  They are the ones who "love Christ and honor the Scriptures" and those who do not are evil Satanic conspirators whom are supporting Devil inspired translations!  These are not rational scholary discussions of this issue (in the ones that I read) raised by these KJV only authors.

This is a legitimate criticism in my view. The tone by many on both sides often becomes strident in the extreme. In defense of those criticising the modern translations, I would argue that the issue, despite the cavalier dismissal of some, is of enough seriousness to warrant some alarm if the concerns expressesd are indeed true. That is, that many modern translatons are based on corrupt greek texts, and that critical and fundamental doctrines of the faith are being undermined, no matter how subtly, by the way the original text has been translated into the English language. It is quite simple.

1. Are the source texts the most reliable?
2. Are the translators faithful to the original language when rendering the words in the English language.
If you have read your modern translations carefully on the second point and are confident that this was done, I wish you all the best.
The first consideration does take a bit more diligent search and study but can be done by the average reader. Christians are responsible to have good and satisfactory answers to both these questions and not leave it up to so-called experts, many of whom are godless and apostate men, to make their decision for them.
If you disagree  this Mark, that is entirely allright with me. I just want to keep talking about the text itself.

 
Quote
Read Bruce Metzger and compare his logical and scholarly tone with these other authors and I think you'll see what I mean.

                                      God Bless,  Mark C.

So as to avoid the charge of an ad hominem attack, I will not say anything about the gentleman you apparently acccept as faithful source.
I would encourage you to post some of his responses to the specific verses that I have cited and then we can engage in a more useful discussion on the issue. Let's talk about the text itself, not what others say about it. I never cease to be amazed at how easily Christians cite other people as some kind of fianal authority without knowing what these folk believe, and equally importantly, how they have lived!
I do not accept the theory that reliable scholarship can be divorced from godliness. That this is true is self-evident- look at the state of affairs!
I could tell you a thing or two about Thayer... Smiley
Verne
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 08:01:28 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2004, 09:18:41 pm »


So as to avoid the charge of an ad hominem attack, I will not say anything about the gentleman you apparently acccept as a faithful source.

Aaahh...what the heck!... Smiley


"For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'. (italics mine)

Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century." [Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development pp. 72-73.]

There is a lot more where that came from...I know, I know...he is indeed a world reknowned expert....

 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.  2 Peter 3:16

Poor Peter, boy was he confused!   Smiley
Verne

p.s.  please note that I am not attacking the man as his stature in the field is unquestionable. I am asking that you evaluate what he says!
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 09:26:16 pm by vernecarty » Logged
vernecarty
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2004, 09:55:40 pm »

Here are things Metzger says, some of which, I completely agree with (I bet you are sruprised!).
This is from an interview done with Lee Strobel on the reliability of the NT text:

EXAMINING THE ERRORS

"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said. "Quite so," Metzger conceded.

"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?" "Quite so."

"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive. "No sir, it does not," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes. That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example. So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in.

"But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. This is nothing to be alarmed at, because Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language." "Meaning...," I prompted him.

"Meaning it makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' - sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence; consequently, the meaning of the sentence isn't distorted if the words are out of what we consider to be the right order. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're inconsequential variations like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."

Still, the high number of "variants," or differences among manuscripts, was troubling. I had seen estimates as high as two hundred thousand of them. However, Metzger downplayed the significance of that figure.

"The number sounds big, but it's a bit misleading because of the way variants are counted," he said. He explained that if a single word is misspelled in two thousand manuscripts, that's counted as two thousand variants.

I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?" "I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy," he responded confidently.

"None?" "None," he repeated. "Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to our door and say, 'Your Bible is wrong in the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8, where it talks about "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They'll say, 'That's not in the earliest manuscripts.'

"And that's true enough. I think that these words are found in only about seven or eight copies, all from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. I acknowledge that is not part of what the author of 1 John was inspired to write.

"But that does not dislodge the firmly witnessed testimony of the Bible to the doctrine of the Trinity. At the baptism of Jesus, the Father speaks, his beloved Son is baptized, and the Holy Spirit descends on him. At the ending of 2 Corinthians Paul says, 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.' There are many places where the Trinity is represented."

"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"

"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)

Strobel continues:

THE "UNRIVALED" NEW TESTAMENT

Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. One of Metzger's distinguished predecessors at Princeton Theological Seminary, Benjamin Warfield, who held four doctorates and taught systematic theology, until his death in 1921, put it this way:

If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied- a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use. (Strobel, p. 91)

Strobel concludes:

As we stood, I thanked Dr. Metzger for his time and expertise. He smiled warmly and offered to walk me downstairs. I didn't want to consume any more of his Saturday afternoon, but my curiosity wouldn't let me leave Princeton without satisfying myself about one remaining issue.

"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - what has all this done to your personal faith?" I asked.

"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, 'it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient."

"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"

He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed."

He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "Very well placed." (Strobel, p. 93)

Strobel interviewed Dr. Mtezger while writing his book The Case for Christ. Sounds entirely reasonable does it not?
As is ususally the case, the devil is in the details.... Smiley

« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 10:00:57 pm by vernecarty » Logged
Mark C.
Guest


Email
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2004, 11:13:36 pm »

Hi Verne! Smiley

  You are proving yourself to be courteous and measured in your responses in the face of some strong disagreement, and for this you are to be commended.

  I keep raising the fact that Erasmus used the Latin Vulgate to fill in missing text in his Greek translation of the small portion of Bzyantine family texts that he had available because I have yet to receive an answer from you other than a denial that says I am not correct.  

  My affirmation that it is true is based in the fact that Erasmus himself tells us this is what he did.  He also includes objections in his work to being forced by the church to include certain verses/words/phrases that he believed were not in the original.

  Your denial that the above is not true is also not sufficient to make the above false.  On what basis do you deny the written record of what Erasmus did?  The only basis for denial is to suggest that Erasmus' comments re. his translation work were forgeries.  Unfortunately this defense won't work, because his hand is evident when compared to his translating work.  

   Re. Bruce Metzger:  The quotes offered seem to be in error in your estimation, but I am unable to notice anything in them that would cause me concern.  You will have to explain your objections to these words of Dr. Metzger in order for me to understand the point you are trying to make.

  Re. verse comparison:  Erasmus made textual choices when he compared the Bzyantine Greek texts that he had.  All ancient and modern translators have done exactly the same, because there is not just one text.

  To compare English translations today, with an eye toward discerning what is the true original, is an excersize in futility.  I'm surprised that you keep raising this issue as it must be apparent that it is the Greek manuscripts themselves that must be read first , and then choices must be made from them as to what is most likely original.

  Again, every translator has to make a choice, since no two copies of any family are exactly the same, and this means critical thinking must be applied.  

   The only other option is to use a "spiritual" method and to lay out all extant copies and pray that God would give one discernement as to which is the original.  It seems that this is the type of "scholarship" you might be hinting at.  Like George, God would provide the true meaning to "godly and spiritual men," and all who oppose our annointed wisdom would be rejected as heretical thinkers decevied by Satan into accepting "modernist German rationalism."

  Lower criticism (this phrase is used to describe the opposite of modernist speculative theology) has to do with making choices from among the variant readings in the texts we have available.  To critically think is to make decisions based on what we understand in re. to the ancient languages in question and why they might vary.  

  Often the differences are obvious, such as spelling errors that present words that make no sense in the passage, and when compared with other texts show up as such.  

Praying and godly life, while necessary for living the Christian life, do not necessarily lead to good scholarship.  A wild man from Borneo who is illiterate, but understands enough to receive Christ, does not now become more able at Bible translating work because he is more spiritual than an unsaved greek scholar.  The scholar's decisions are judged not by his theology, but on the basis of his thinking re. the text he is translating.

   This may sound like a side issue from the context of this BB, but it does raise a crucial difference in the way we consider what is "spiritual" and what is "worldly," or of the "devil."   GG asserted that a "godly surrendered life to Christ" led to an elevated "vision and a true spirituality" and that reading the Bible with the "natural mind" led to Christians being banished to Outer Darkness!

   The wedding, that I talked about on another thread, re. present Assembly members in WLA and Pasadena illustrates this point.  The couple met with some former members, before extending an invitation to come to the wedding, in order to make sure that the former members, if they decided to come, would not "raise any controversial issues at the wedding."

  When the invited asked "what this might mean?", they were told to keep all discussions with individuals solely based on scripture.  The invited were not sure what that was supposed to mean, but I can guess what it might mean: "Don't use critical thinking skills to evaluate what we believe or think as this is worldly."  This is done because in the Assembly, as in all Bible based cults, the Bible is actually used as a shield against honest evaluation.

  "Wait Mark, what are you saying here?  You think that sticking solely to a scriptural thought pattern is cultic?  It can be, if the verses are just thrown out there as a means to avoid facing honest critical evaluation, and make no mistake that's what these Assembly folks were worried about in re. to this wedding.

  When Andrew Gunther from the Valley, a former leader, contacted me he used all kinds of biblical language about desiring "to have no issues between him and a brother in Christ", but when I raised the practial issues he instantly stopped our conversation, changed his phone number, and blocked any email from my address!

  In his mind he is justified because, "I left quoting scripture and became negative by critically thinking about Assembly teaching and practices."  There are no Bible verses that directly mention GG, the Assembly, etc. and as such there has to be a process whereby we think about the Bible and apply it honestly to a situation.

  With GG you could be "intellectually correct, but spiritually wrong."  This means one must learn to think in what GG called " the mind of Christ".  As with the Moonies, International Churches of Christ, etc. all negative evaluations of the group's conduct is demonic.

  This applies to some of the KJV only folks I have read as they assert all intellectual challenges to their position is negated because it comes from the "ungodly."   Their view that "spiritual thought is rooted in faith in what most supports an orthodox theological view," i.e., the use of the full name "Lord Jesus Christ" is superior to a translation that only includes the name "Jesus" because somehow the first sounds better.  

   The fact that the text of the NT contains clear teaching in other portions that Jesus is indeed God of very God matters not to them because the basis for their thinking is a "higher and more spiritual method" than examination of the varaint extant texts.

   It is very important that former members of the Assembly, and groups like them, understand and reject the notion I describe above as "spiritual thought" vs. "natural thought" lest we fall into the same kind of elitism and self righteousness that controlled our former lives.

                                  God Bless,  Mark C.  

   

 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!