Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .4
My first few ‘blogs’ on the subject of ‘Why I use the AV have focused in on the questionable translation of the Hebrew & Greek texts. In this ‘blog’ I want to focus on some words that have not been translated at all. I want to look at a word that on nine occasions has been omitted from the modern translations even thought it is in the Greek text.
Do you have a Holy Bible?
Most Bibles carry the title ‘Holy Bible’ on the cover and the modern versions are no exception. However, it would appear that the translators of the modern versions have an aversion to the word ‘holy’.
The quotation below are the words of the Lord Jesus speaking of His second advent.
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Matt 25 v31
The word translated ‘holy’ in the passage is from the Greek: -
ἅγιος = hagios = holy
This word ‘hagios’ is in the Greek text and is correctly translated ‘holy’ in the AV. However, if we look at the same verse the New International Version (NIV) the word ‘holy’ has disappeared.
‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.’ Matt 25 v31 NIV
The angels are no longer ‘holy’ angels, just angels. The NCV, ESV, NLT & NASB all do this. Below is a list of 8 other verses in which this identical practice of dropping the word ‘holy’ occurs.
2 Pet 1v21 Holy Men
1 Thess 5 v27 Holy Brethren
Rev 22 v6 Holy prophets
Rev 18 v20 Holy Apostles & prophets
John 7 v39 Holy Ghost
1 Cor 2 v13 Holy Ghost
Acts 6 v3 Holy Ghost
Acts 8 v18 Holy Ghost
The New International Version (NIV), The New Living Translation (NLT), New American Standard Version (NASB), The English Standard Version (ESV) and the New Century Version (NCV) all drop the word ‘holy’ in these verses with the exception of the NCV, which includes the word in Revelation 18 v20 & John 7 v39.
So why does this really matter? It matters because God inspired the writers of the New Testament to use the word ‘holy’ when they were writing, who has given these people the right to ignore a word that He has seen fit to include? If the author sees fit to use a word the translator ought to respect that and include it in the translation. God puts a lot of emphasis on His very words, did Jesus not say, ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.’ Mark 13 v31 The Bible also has grave warnings for those who would dare diminish from His revealed word.
‘Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.’ Deuteronomy 4 v 1-2
This is only one of many such warnings in scripture; we would do well to heed it. Perhaps we shall explore others as we develop this study further.
PS
No doubt some may point out that all of these things I have been blogging about depend on which Greek Text you are using. Can I assure those who say this that I intend to address that topic as part of this series of blogs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another good post, Maurice.
ReplyDeleteSome people say that this kind of stuff is a personal matter, and nothing more than nit-picking and unnecessarily divisive... I disagree.
If the Scriptures are the foundation upon which we base our beliefs, then accuracy of translation IS important.
As 2nd Timothy 3:16 & 17 says ~ “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
An important corollary of this is that all INACCURATE scripture is not given by inspiration of God, and is not always profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may not be perfect, not throughly furnished unto all good works!
The reason for 'holy' not appearing in Mt.25:31 is indeed because it is not in the Greek copies used by most of the modern versions. It is not a matter of the translator wishing to omit it.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the AV omit 'God' in Rev.1:8? 'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' After 'saith the Lord' the Majority Text has 'God', making the text 'saith the Lord God'.
Has the AV an aversion to the word 'God'?
Wolfbane, you appear to have a rather limited knowledge or understanding of the topic of source texts.
ReplyDeleteUntil the mid-1800s, the accepted Greek New Testament was based upon some form of what is called the traditional text. The text was comprised of readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D. This text, classified in later years as the Byzantine text type, is the basis for the Received Text, from which the Authorized (King James) Version and translations into many other languages were made. It was the New Testament of the Reformation and early Protestant church throughout the world and translated into numerous languages.
In the mid-1800s, however, the traditional Greek text of the New Testament was suddenly abandoned and a new text was constructed. In this, the textual critics essentially abandoned the traditional Byzantine text for a number of manuscripts found in Egypt, dating from approximately the third to the fifteenth centuries. Two of these Alexandrian manuscripts, dating from the fourth, are considered by some scholars as being the best representatives of the original manuscripts on the basis of their relative age and several other subjective factors, mainly “modern textual criticism.”
The problem is, however, that these text were not considered accurate enough to the early church in that they were abandoned... usually hidden or buried because they were considered dangerous. (You should be aware that the reason why these texts were not burned, or in some other way destroyed, is because it was considered to be unthinkable to destroy God's Word, and since, no doubt, there were parts of these texts which would have had an element of accuracy, then to destroy them would be wrong. So, it was a common practise to bury or hide them because of the danger of them being circulated (since they were a mixture of truth and error). This is well documented and was something which was done even way before copies of the New Testament were made... it was actually also the practice of the Jews who made copies of the Old Testament texts.
The Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly the two oldest, differ greatly from the traditional text. The Vatican manuscript differs from the traditional in 7,578 words, and the Sinai manuscript differs from the original 8,972 times. Indeed, the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts disagree between themselves more than three thousand times in the Gospels alone! As the nineteenth century textual critic John Burgon put it, “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS (manuscripts) differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."
Yet, twentieth century scholars have chosen, on this basis of their own reasoning (heavily influenced by pro-Roman Catholic scholarship), to abandon the Traditional Text in favour of a text based, primarily, on these two Alexandrian manuscripts. (So much for "majority" of texts... most of the work is NOT based on anything like the sort of vast number of texts that some people think.
The Greek texts used by many "modern" versions (falsely so-called) is said to provide the best that “modern scholarship” has to offer. How sad, given that such scholarship places the five thousand manuscripts of the Traditional Text (which agree with each other!!!) into a single text family and relegates that family to an inferior position. Thus the Traditional Text of the New Testament has virtually no place in these "modern" versions. Instead, these versions (under the guise of "modernity") reproduce many of the doctrinal errors and problems present in the abandoned/hidden flawed texts found in Egypt (many of the very errors and problems which had caused these texts to have been previously rejected in the first place by the early church.
So, my advice to you, Wolfbane, would be to properly examine the term "majority texts" and understand what texts are actually being used here.
ReplyDeleteAs someone once put it well, "The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing multiple manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.
See that, "more numerous"? Well, as I have already dealt with in another comment associated with this current debate, you do not decide orthodoxy and accuracy by a show of hands! (Many of those hands being unsaved hands and influenced often by ecumenism these days.) Even if we were to accept that these texts (considered so good by "modern" translators) are a majority ... it still doesn't settle the accuracy question. All it would mean is that there are many false texts in comparison to accurate ones. Which shouldn't surprise us, given what the Scriptures warn us about! (Many false teachers, etc.)
The AV, far from having an aversion to the Word of God, is the best translation of the Word of God in the English language because it is based on the most accurate of texts (the RECEIVED text), and not the many rejected texts that are seriously corrupted texts.
*Wolfsbane (as opposed to Wolfbane)
ReplyDeleteStephen
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled by your assertion that the AV is based on 'readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D.'
The Trinitarian Bible Society, THE Bible Society promoting the AV, more accurately claims: 'It is the result of the textual studies of conservative scholars during the years both before and after the Reformation, and represents FOR THE MOST PART over 5,000 available Greek manuscripts.' [emphasis mine].
For some texts, the AV has no Greek basis, and depends on the Latin Vulgate.
But my puzzlement goes beyond that, to the fact that you seem to put the 5000 texts underlying the AV against the much fewer underlying most modern versions. You seem to suggest numbers matter.
Yet later to reject the Majority Text where it differs from the Traditional Text on the basis 'you do not decide orthodoxy and accuracy by a show of hands!'
I'm not defending the minority texts, just pointing out we need to make our assessment on the facts, not misunderstandings.
So here are the facts: The Received Text/Traditional Text (basis of the AV) is close to the Majority Text, but not identical to it. To defend the RT/TT as the only text, one has to say that in places most of the copies are wrong, and that Erasmus was able from the six Greek copies he had and the Vulgate to correctly identify them.
Is that your case? A Roman Catholic scholar gets a more accurate text from a few copies and the Vulgate?
Let me suggest that the AV is a good version because the text it uses is close to the Majority Text. In fact, most versions are close to it. The differences between most versions are not such that they make any of them not the Word of God.
Actually, Wolfsbane, I was clear in what I said - The Byzantine text type, is the basis for the Received Text, from which the Authorized (King James) Version and translations into many other languages were made.
ReplyDeleteThe Byzantine text type was comprised of readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D.
This is not puzzling or inaccurate, nor does the Trinitarian Bible Society disagree with that.
In fact, to be fair, I think you are trying to play around with words, here. I didn’t say that the AV was constructed in the fifth century. I said that it was based on the Byzantine text which was comprised of over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated (the over five thousand manuscripts, that is) from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D. A statement I stand by… because it’s a fact!
My reference to the numbers issue here was (as I actually explained very clearly, if you would take the time to read my comment carefully) to show the absurdity of the idea that the texts used to construct the Byzantine text (which formed the BASIS of the AV) should be relegated to ONE family of texts (by those who wish to suggest that the texts are no more authoritative than those which differ from them), when actually it is drawn from five thousand texts which all, miraculously, agree. The same cannot be said of the texts used by scholars to produce the “modern” versions… where it is more difficult to find agreement than disagreement.
I continued to expand the argument by using the “show of hands” expression to make the point that a majority of texts, in and of itself, does not settle the accuracy argument. Furthermore, (and in the same context as I had made earlier in previous comments associated with the current debate) that just because a majority of modern scholars today, (comprising Roman Catholics, Ecumenists, Gays and Lesbians, and many other liberal “scholars”, and sometimes a token Evangelical), reading any number of texts, decide which “text” is to be taken and which is to be rejected, especially when they simply take a so-called majority reading, does not settle the accuracy argument.
Put simply, the terms “majority” and “most manuscripts agree”, etc. are used today by liberal scholars in a most erroneous and hypocritical way… and this was the point I wanted to highlight. That’s why my suggestion to you was, “to properly examine the term "majority texts" and understand what texts are actually being used here.”
Given the fact that I neither asserted nonfactual statements, then your inference that my assessment is not based on facts is, in itself, a misunderstanding on your part.
Wolfsbane, you then proceeded to state what you believe are the facts. But, instead of just stating facts, you actually put forward a straw-man argument thus:
ReplyDelete“…one has to say that in places most of the copies are wrong, and that Erasmus was able from the six Greek copies he had and the Vulgate to correctly identify them. Is that your case? A Roman Catholic scholar gets a more accurate text from a few copies and the Vulgate?”
You put forward a flawed argument, especially accompanied with your follow-up statement, (“A Roman Catholic scholar gets a more accurate text from a few copies and the Vulgate?”), you present the case as if you have just demolished my point.
The problem (with your red-herring approach) is that I never made that argument in the first instance! Or, to put it another way, you misrepresent Erasmus, and his work.
Firstly, Erasmus’ association with the Catholic church, by the time he engaged in his work, does not mean that he was a faithful supporter of the Roman Catholic church in the sense that you imply (as if to cast doubt upon what I said). Erasmus remained committed to reforming the church (but from within). He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which the Protestant Reformers rejected in favour of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road approach disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as many Catholics. So, your line of argument is seriously flawed to suggest that this man was a “Roman Catholic” scholar, in the sense that you infer in your attempt to undermine my position. Erasmus was hardly your typical Romanist! He was pretty much a man who didn't always toe the Roman church line.
Indeed, you should also be aware that, as Fuller wrote, “the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church. All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of bible; these others built on the Received Text.”
Secondly, you are mistaken to make it appear as if my view is, by necessity, entirely dependant upon one scholar!
As Wilkinson writes, "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian (AD 250-312). Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology.”
Indeed, not only Lucian, and Erasmus worked to bring these manuscripts together, but others were involved too; noteably, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers. It was not all based only upon the work of Erasmus.
On the other hand, Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible - deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying.
Finally, Wolfsbane, you closed your comment with the following statement:
ReplyDelete“the AV is a good version because the text it uses is close to the Majority Text. In fact, most versions are close to it. The differences between most versions are not such that they make any of them not the Word of God.”
That is simply not true!
“Modern” versions are hugely corrupted. Indeed, in many instances, not only are portions of Scripture left out entirely, but fundamental Doctrinal issues are tampered with, weakened, and even completely changed or erased. The problems with “modern” versions arise not only from the fact that in many cases corrupt texts are used as a foundation, but also because of the erroneous translation methodologies and philosophies employed by the liberal scholars involved in the translation work.
The argument for using “versions” in English other than the AV is based primarily, and ultimately, upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts.
I reject this hypothesis, and you have come no closer to proving it right.
I agree that assessments must be made using facts and not misunderstandings; it is for that very reason, then, that I must reject yours in large part.
Again, the King James (AV) translation of the Holy Scriptures is the best and most reliable we have in the English tongue… and until a more accurate version is furnished from more reliable texts, then I, like Maurice, would advise anyone who cares about whether or not God’s smile attends their reading, to stick with the AV… and use a dictionary for any unfamiliar words you may come across.
Seriously, you KJV only-ers are all so narrow minded. Do these "mistranslations" (which of course they're not they're translated accurately for the source text,) have any bearing on serious doctrinal issues? The answer is no. Your issue does not seem to be about the translators - which let's face were/are experts in language, unlike anyone who has commented on this blog, but about the source texts. What it seems to me you are doing is criticising something because of very minor issues, but ignoring the vast majority of similarities which the translations have in common. Furthermore, this fixation you have with all the unimportant "errors" is a bit like tithing mint and cummin, (or their kjv counterparts,) whilst ignoring the important matters. Phariseeism by another name. You have made a god out of your translation. Thankfully God is actually after people who worship HIM and show it in their lives by good works, (see James, in whatever version you wish,) and love for each other. Besides do you genuinely think that your biassed views are going to convince anyone to switch translations anyway?
ReplyDeleteStephen
ReplyDeleteYour basic mistake is assuming the Received Text is identical to The Byzantine text type: 'the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church'.
Nonsense! The RT was compiled from copies of the Byzantine text type - Erasmus and later Stephens selected the readings THEY thought best supported - and added to it bits from the Latin Bible that the Greek had not included.
It is fair enough to argue one text type is more accurate than another, but it is not right to claim selections from that text type are perfect and selections from the other are 'corrupt'.
The are NO copies of the Greek New Testament that are perfect and complete. The compilers have to make a judgement as to the best for each word/sentence. Some choices are worse than others.
But if you know of a perfect Greek New Testament that has been found, I'd be glad to know. In fact, if you know of a Greek New Testament that was used by the Greek Church down the ages and is identical to the Received Text, that also will be amazing news.
How can you claim such a text - which does not exist as far as I know - yet accept the AV which adds part of the Latin Bible to the Greek to give us the New Testament?
Great confusion comes from thinking the term Traditional Text is the same as Received Text/Textus Receptus. It is not. The Byzantine text can properly be called the Traditional Text, but not the Received Text/Textus Receptus. The latter is well described in this article:
ReplyDelete'What is the Textus Receptus?
Today the term Textus Receptus is used generically to apply to all editions of the Greek New
Testament which follow the early printed editions of Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus of
Rotterdam (1469?-1536), a Roman Catholic humanist, translated the New Testament into
Latin and prepared an edition of the Greek to be printed beside his Latin version to
demonstrate the text from which his Latin came. Erasmus used six or seven Greek
manuscripts (the oldest being from the 10th century), combining and comparing them in a
process in which he chose the correct readings where there were variants. On several
occasions he followed the Latin and included some of its readings in his text. This edition was
published in 1516. There was great interest in this Greek text, and it is the Greek text for
which the volume is remembered. This New Testament was the first published edition of a
Textus Receptus family New Testament.
The term was first used, however, to refer to the edition of the Greek New Testament
published by the Elzevirs in 1633. The preface to this edition, written by Daniel Heinsius,
includes the Latin phrase "textum ... receptum". Because of this, the 1633 edition became
known as the "Textus Receptus" or the Received Text. This term has been expanded to include
numerous editions of the Greek New Testament which come from the same Byzantine textual
family representing the majority of the handwritten Greek manuscripts before the 16th
century.
It needs to be remembered that the editions included in this family of Greek New Testaments
were printed volumes. The Greek texts which preceded them were all hand-copied
manuscripts which were in turn copied from copies for many hundreds of years. No two of the
well over 5,000 manuscripts which are known today agree 100% with each other. In other
words, the Textus Receptus was not printed from one manuscript alone.'
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteWhy can you not debate or discuss an issue without resorting to accusing people of stating things which they did not, and then engaging in attempts to demolish those arguments (which your opponent never made) and then presenting the whole exercise as some sort of refutation?
I will (for possibly the 3rd or 4th time since I became involved in this debate) repeat just exactly what I DID say:
“The Byzantine text type, is the basis for the Received Text, from which the Authorized (King James) Version and translations into many other languages were made. The Byzantine text type was comprised of readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D.”
Earlier, I stated:
“The accepted Greek New Testament was based upon some form of what is called the traditional text. The text was comprised of readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D. This text, classified in later years as the Byzantine text type, is the basis for the Received Text, from which the Authorized (King James) Version and translations into many other languages were made. It was the New Testament of the Reformation and early Protestant church throughout the world and translated into numerous languages.”
I never said that “one manuscript” or “the same” manuscript was used to furnish the AV, or the Byzantine text, or the Received text. … coming down through the years until we got the AV version. (Again, a total straw-man argument from you). Nor did I claim that the text we have today is absolutely, 100 percent perfection. (Again, a total straw-man from you). I actually made it clear that the AV is the “best” – it is not the original (after all it’s only a translation… but the most accurate we have today).
How many times do I need to state this Wolfsbane? Those statements are historical facts!
Bring up all sorts of issues if you like about how many forms of the Received text were made all in all? (answer – 30 (approx.) and no less than 500 printings, etc., etc., etc.) I am well acquainted with the history of Bible translations. But you miss the central point, Wolfsbane.
Wolfsbane, I am also fully aware that the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. (Neither did I make such a claim … another straw-man argument!) I know, for example, that the AV translators also relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. These variations include spelling, accents and breathing marks, word order and other minor kinds of differences. The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. (The same CANNOT be said of the massive differences in the utterly unreliable texts used by “modern” scholars!) Over the centuries that followed, numerous men set about collecting, combining and comparing the manuscripts in order to have one complete Greek New Testament text - the earliest of these is the text we know of as the Textus Receptus or Received Text.
ReplyDeleteI have no issue with this, nor did I even attempt to deny any of this… but, again you seem to miss the central point… which is, that the documents these men used were all derived ultimately from the more than five thousand texts (dated from the 5th to seventh centuries) which were used to form the basis of later texts and differ in no way doctrinally. In fact they are absolutely in agreement, doctrinally (which is the current context of the debate, I believe)… if you want to get pernickety and talk about non-doctrinal omissions, differences, etc., no problem, but Maurice has been specifically dealing with doctrinal issues affected by the use of corrupted source texts (and you CAN call something corrupt if it differs doctrinally!... indeed, you must!!).
Wolfsbane, The sources which have heavily influenced the “modern versions” since the 1800’s include many sources that differ vastly from the source texts from which we (ultimately) get the AV (which is the central point of virtually everything I have said to you… and to be fair, and having read over, again, what I have previously stated, it is abundantly clear!).
ReplyDeleteToday, scholars are continuing to collect and collate manuscripts in an effort to produce what they believe to be a better Greek text. The most recent of these is the work, based upon these very much less reliable manuscripts, published through the United Bible Societies; commonly called the Critical Text.
As the Trinitarian Bible Society put it:
“Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God’s words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts.”
Amen to that! (I have never suggested or stated otherwise, and I do not appreciate your inference (or outright accusation) that I did. I do not consider straw-man arguments / ‘redherrings’ / false accusations, etc., to be a very sound, convincing, or proper way in which to conduct a debate!)
So the question (as I already have made clear both to you and some fella called “Peter”), comes down to source texts and how reliable they are (and, of course, the translation methodologies and philosophies used by scholars in furnishing the “modern” versions.
But I shall, again, state what I have said numerous times before:
“The argument for using “versions” in English other than the AV is based primarily, and ultimately, upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. I reject this hypothesis, and you have come no closer to proving it right. The King James (AV) translation of the Holy Scriptures is the best and most reliable we have in the English tongue… and until a more accurate version is furnished from more reliable texts, then I, like Maurice, would advise anyone who cares about whether or not God’s smile attends their reading, to stick with the AV… and use a dictionary for any unfamiliar words you may come across.”
And, again… corrupt texts such as those used to furnish the plethora of “modern” versions, and containing unacceptably large doctrinal differences/errors, etc., are indeed just that – CORRUPT!
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI am assuming, (correct me if I am wrong) that you are the same "Peter" from last week, who left some comments on earlier blog posts.
You demonstrate an almost amusing lack of serious interest in the subject. Your childlike verbal attacks upon people whom you have not even met is telling, and completely undermines any attempt you make to come across as someone who has even a the smallest amount of genuine interest in the spiritual well-being of others (your attempt to guide me in how I ought to walk as a Christian, and your referencing of James, etc.)
You said: "Your issue does not seem to be about the translators - which let's face were/are experts in language, unlike anyone who has commented on this blog, but about the source texts. What it seems to me you are doing is criticising something because of very minor issues, but ignoring the vast majority of similarities which the translations have in common."
In response I offer you this (only for the record, of course, because I am not interested in wasting my time on you as someone who couldn't care less about actually listening to what people have already said, and someone who evidently WILL NOT hear, and thus someone I am not trying to convince of anything... because you aren't listening!):
No, my issue is actually about both the source texts AND modern "translators", which, let's face it, you evidently either (a) know nothing about, OR, (b) you are extremely liberal. (You couldn't possibly say what you said otherwise.) - I suspect, given your inability to actually engage in a proper discussion of the topic (evidenced by your petty personal attacks), that it is (a) you haven't got a clue about these "experts" whom you reckon are vastly superior to everyone else on this blog (whom you actually don't know, (certainly I do not recall meeting you), and whom you have, therefore, no idea as regards our credentials, experience, work, etc.).
Peter, you also said:
ReplyDelete"...this fixation you have with all the unimportant "errors" is a bit like tithing mint and cummin, (or their kjv counterparts,) whilst ignoring the important matters. Phariseeism by another name. You have made a god out of your translation."
Actually, it's not a fixation, it's simply an understanding of the importance to warn others of mistakes that I previously engaged in myself for many years; namely, considering "modern" versions to be accurate enough to be classified as reliable translations of the Scriptures in my mother tongue.
As regards that silly, out of context comment about 'Phariseeism' - you should actually study a copy of God's Word to see just what that is. Warning people about the dangers of bogus "scripture" translations is far from 'Phariseeism". A point likely missed on you who clearly couldn't care less about accurate accusations, evidenced by the fact that you have no clue about what I spend most of my time on (and it is certainly not on the subject of translations... although I have cared enough about it to study the subject matter thoroughly).
I'm sure if you were to actually speak to someone who actually knows me personally and make those comments to them about me, you would likely get your ears blasted (figuratively speaking!)
One last thing, and again for the record, if indeed you are the same "Peter" who left comments on earlier threads last week, then you evidently have a very strange (and hypocritical) way of showing us all how much of a petty and unnecessary waste of time and effort you think this whole subject is; i.e. you keep coming back and reading and posting on this blog!
One last thing, I think your words and line of personal attacks declare you to be utterly insincere which may perhaps be derived from more deep-seated problems... which is your own business. But do not be at all surprised if I do not respond to any more of your comments, and do not interpret my silence toward you as evidence of any supposed inability on my part to refute you!
I am happy to discuss these important matters with anyone who is sincere (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), but silly, ignorant, angry personal attacks is not something that I intend to waste my time upon any further, now that I have taken the time in this comment to make the point!
"Stephen" I am indeed the same "Peter" (although why you have placed my name in quotation marks "confuses" me.) What would be the point in discussing the issues with KJV Only-ers. They're not going to change their mind. According to them, you being their representative, I seem to be some sort of heretic for reading different versions. There is no arguing with you. You are closed minded on the subject, but you're not satisfied with that. You would force everyone to read your "version" if it were possible.
ReplyDeleteI may seem flippant, and intentionally so, because nothing in the blog that we have seen represents serious translation errors. In fact the translations are accurate based on the texts used. Even when the texts are taken into consideration, there are no major doctrinal differences between NIV, ESV, KJV. So why get your "knickers" in a "twist?"
Is it not more important to worship God than to argue over trifles and to make a god of a translation?
You should listen to this for a different perspective: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=312102116455
ReplyDeleteStephen
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you think I was misrepresenting you. That was not my intention. I was merely confused as to what you were saying.
For example, you wrote: 'the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church.' But that is NOT true: the TR/Received Text is a SELECTION from the Byzantine family of texts plus some from the Vulgate. It was complied by Erasmus and revised by Beza, et al, in the 1500's.
But you also correctly stated: 'The accepted Greek New Testament was based upon some form of what is called the traditional text. The text was comprised of readings from over five thousand manuscripts, from all over the Mediterranean world and dated from the fifth to seventh centuries A.D. This text, classified in later years as the Byzantine text type, is the basis for the Received Text...'
Two conflicting statements. But I'm glad you have taken time to affirm it is the latter one you meant.
Stephen
ReplyDeleteIt remains a puzzle, however, that you condemn versions based on the other text families, on the basis that only the Byzantine one is correct. How can you say that, since part of the TR/Received Text is NOT based on the Byzantine texts? Does that not make the TR -and the AV which is translated from it - a 'perversion'?
Or maybe you are not saying that, and I've misunderstood your objection to the texts which the modern versions use? If so, please point it out.
But to the key issue: the allegation that 'fundamental Doctrinal issues are tampered with, weakened, and even completely changed or erased.'
I am unaware that ANY doctrine has been so treated. If one text type omits or changes a word or passage that seems to support a doctrine, that is not proof the copyist was tampering.
These examples on the deity of Christ show the AV 'changes' some that support the Deity of Christ to some that cannot be used to teach that doctrine.
AV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV (2011)John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
AV Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
NIV (2011) Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
AV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
NIV (2011) 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
Or on justification:
AV Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
NIV (2011) revelation 22:14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.
Is the AV and the TR doctrinally perverse? No, for the doctrines of the Deity of Christ and Justification by Faith are taught plainly in other passages of both the text and the translation.
SAME FOR THE MODERN VERSIONS. If one wanted to remove a doctrine, one has to remove ALL supporting texts. If the copyists were intent on doing so, why did they overlook all the other supporting texts?
Let's talk sense. All the text types agree on 85% of the text. So we are disputing which is best for the remaining 15%. And much of that is, as you put it, 'non-doctrinal omissions, differences, etc.' So it's very few that can be considered doctrinal-supporting, and none that remove any doctrine.
It is right to seek out the best, but it is not right to classify the other efforts as 'perversions', for our favourite - whatever it may be - can also be shown to have some of the same problems.
NIV (2010), not NIV (2011).
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYou stated:
"It remains a puzzle, however, that you condemn versions based on the other text families, on the basis that only the Byzantine one is correct. How can you say that, since part of the TR/Received Text is NOT based on the Byzantine texts? Does that not make the TR -and the AV which is translated from it - a 'perversion'?"
Actually, it's not puzzling at all. Those parts of the RT which are not taken from the Byzantine text are not in conflict with it. Unlike the other, corrupted texts which are used in the "modern versions".
As regards your statement:
"Let's talk sense. All the text types agree on 85% of the text. So we are disputing which is best for the remaining 15%. And much of that is, as you put it, 'non-doctrinal omissions, differences, etc.' So it's very few that can be considered doctrinal-supporting, and none that remove any doctrine."
That is a very telling statement indeed! It ranges from the nonsensical on the one hand, to the outright false on the other.
I did not state that all of the differences between ALL text types are "non-doctrinal omissions, differences, etc." I was talking about the differences between the 5 thousand manuscripts (dated from the 5th to 7th centuries) and other texts, from which the AV, via the RT, etc., were produced from. I was NOT saying that differences between ALL other texts (for example, texts such as the Alexandrian texts) were non-doctrinal... because they most certainly ARE!
It IS right to seek out the best, and it IS right to expose, so-called, "modern versions" that are heavily corrupted by corrupted source texts.
Mark Knox,
ReplyDeleteThis argument (at least as far as I am concerned), is not about "KJ onlyism"... (as I have now stated multiple times on a number of comment threads on this blog which, to be fair, perhaps you have not read). Rather, as far as I am concerned, it is about the AV being the most accurate in the English tongue to date... and until a more accurate version is furnished, then we have no call (and certainly no claim to orthodoxy) to be using a less accurate version.
Stephen
ReplyDelete'Actually, it's not puzzling at all. Those parts of the RT which are not taken from the Byzantine text are not in conflict with it. Unlike the other, corrupted texts which are used in the "modern versions".'
So it OK to add to the word of God, as you use the same criteria to accuse the other texts of subtracting from it???
'I was NOT saying that differences between ALL other texts (for example, texts such as the Alexandrian texts) were non-doctrinal... because they most certainly ARE!'
Nor did I say you were. I pointed out that 85% of the texts agree, and MOST of the differences are certainly not doctrinal.
The few that could be used to support a particular doctrine also can be explained as genuine mistakes. If they were doctrinally motivated, it is strange the same texts teach in other places the doctrines they are accused of undermining. Surely the heretic copyist would have omitted ALL references to the doctrine?
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteI see you are back to playing with words and "straw-man" arguments again.
I said they (those parts of the RT not taken from the Byzantine texts) were not in CONFLICT with the Byzantine texts. Texts which are (in CONFLICT), either by conflicting additions or conflicting subtractions, ARE corrupt. Differences between the Byzantine and the RT are not additions to God's Word or subtractions. They are, taken together, God's Word because they are from uncorrupted sources. Additions or subtractions in the other, corrupted texts used to construct the so-called "modern versions" ARE doctrinally different.
Your point that "85% of the texts agree, and MOST of the differences are certainly not doctrinal" is not true.
Besides, it is actually a non-point and does not subtract from my argument, at all, because my argument is not that there are a specific number of doctrinal differences between the "modern versions" and the AV, my point is that there ARE doctrinal differences between the "modern versions" (constructed from corrupt texts, and manipulated by corrupt editorial committees), and the AV which was ultimately constructed from source texts that were not doctrinally corrupted.
Your final point is, yet again, a "straw-man" argument and thus a non point. Or, put another way, just because a heretic's work is not seamlessly done is hardly an argument for accepting his/her work!
Stephen
ReplyDeleteHere's the key flaw in your argument:
'Differences between the Byzantine and the RT are not additions to God's Word or subtractions. They are, taken together, God's Word because they are from uncorrupted sources.'
You are asserting here that the Byzantine text is not the complete word of God, and that the Vulgate is also an uncorrupted source. Have you any other 'uncorrupted' sources? The Old Latin Bible? The LXX?
All of this would have been a big surprise to the AV committee, who laboured to get the best text from all the various texts they had.
'Additions or subtractions in the other, corrupted texts used to construct the so-called "modern versions" ARE doctrinally different.'
Which doctrines are added or deleted in the modern versions?
Lastly, the 'corrupt editorial committees' in charge of the modern versions: What do you know about the individuals on the AV committee? Do you stand over their doctrine and conduct in all cases? Do you assert they had not 'corrupting' influence on formation of the AV?
Evidently not so, Wolfsbane.
ReplyDeleteI would also refer you to my previous comments as you appear to have not read them.
You really ought to quit the straw-man arguments, by the way! They really don't add weight to your argument, at all.
You said:
"Lastly, the 'corrupt editorial committees' in charge of the modern versions: What do you know about the individuals on the AV committee? Do you stand over their doctrine and conduct in all cases? Do you assert they had not 'corrupting' influence on formation of the AV?"
... that is a whopper of a straw-man! and thus a non point... and hardly one that reinforces your own argument!
You also said:
"Which doctrines are added or deleted in the modern versions?"
Stay tuned... this is only getting started... there is a whole plethora of material on that topic alone.
For any one who is genuinely interested in this topic, the following link may be of help:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=12307142243
Take your time, I'm happy to wait for your answers.
ReplyDeleteFor those who want to 'Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.'
ReplyDeleteThis will help you cut through all the hype and spin:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakerWithinSource=&subsetCat=&subsetItem=&mediatype=&includekeywords=&keyword=king+james+OR+kjv&keyworddesc=KJV+Controversy&currsection=sermonstopic&AudioOnly=false&speakerwithin=chase&x=18&y=13
For those who want an honest and more informed appraisal, the following may be of help:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12407102458
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1300793836
And specifically regarding the NKJV:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3901143621