Have you read the Codex Sinaiticus as presented on line?Originally Posted by Boo
Coffee Break
Have you read the Codex Sinaiticus as presented on line?
Coffee Break
It doesn't take much resources, just read what the men who changed the "Authorized Version" said.
Dr. George Vance Smith--
"The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: `At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,' [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read `in the name.' Moreover, no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ" (Smith, Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed, p. 47).
"The old reading [God in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,--a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times ... to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as `God manifested in the flesh'" (Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).
This Dr. George Vance Smith was the Unitarian that Hort worked hard to get and keep on the translation committee of the ERV and ASV. Let his words sink in. You cannot argue that they were not trying to change the Bible. They didn't believe in the Deity of Christ.
When you compare the words of Smith with the following words of Hort don't you see a problem with their revision?
A letter from Hort.
No rational being doubts the need of a revised Bible ; and the popular practical objections are worthless. Yet I have an increasing feeling in favour of delay. Of course no revision can be final, and it would be absurd to wait for perfection. But the criticism of both Testaments, in text and interpretation alike, appears to me to be just now in that chaotic state (in Germany hardly if at all less than in England), that the results of immediate revision would be peculiarly unsatisfactory. . . .i John v. 7 might be got rid of in a month ; and if that were
done, I should prefer to wait a few years.
Vance Smith worked on the committee to remove any vestige of worship of Jesus. Hort worked to remove Jesus from the Trinity. It is time we take our heads out of the sand, and acknowledge there was a problem with the revision of 1881.
What are you trying to say rejoice44? What is your favorite translation of the bible? It seems like you are on a mission to discredit most if not all of the various versions of the bible that have ever been written. Which one do you trust? None?
Coffee Break
Have you read what I posted? Do you accept it? If you do accept it, you should be in agreement, if you don't accept it, what have I posted that is untrue?
Citizen
**
What i am saying is that few have the scholarship required to amke informed decision just why we might see one greek text superior to another, and why one English version superior to another!
one can use TR/CT/MT greek text with full condidence, and while the KJV is fine, best version of its time, those such as NIV/NASB better for serious bible studies, as translaed off better greek text than KJV was....
Coffee Break
If you think it is better Greek you need to go online and examine the Codex Sinaiticus. It was written by a person who had trouble spelling, and as a result, many say it was written through dictation, since that would account for the spelling errors. If it was written through dictation, the most likely reason being the urgency to produce it. The claim that Simonides had not written it when he said he did (because of lack of time), would account for the way it was copied, and explain the numerous spelling errors. When you make a close examination of it, you have the sense it was copied from the Vaticanus.
Citizen
**
just curious as to what your creditials would be to be able to evaluate if the Critical texts used by the transalators of either the NASb/NIV were of "inferior quality"?
Coffee Break
Hard work and an investigative mind. My credentials are not nearly as good as Philpot's were when he said they would remove scripture and bring about endless debates.
Posting Freak
I think the KJV is great. I appreciate that you acknowledge that God works in the lives of people who use new versions.
But others who have put in hard work and have an investigative mind disagree with you --- including nearly the entire scholarly field. I'm not denying that you've put in hard work. However, born again, spirit-filled scholars disagree with you and have very, very good reasons. Guys who've dedicated their lives to this and have put in 1,000's of more hours than you have.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown
Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson
Coffee Break
The entire scholarly field is like a group of doctors dissecting the inward working of a hair follicle on a critter they found. Now I don’t know anything about a hair follicle, but it seems if they would only open its mouth and observe its teeth, they might find it is a dragon they are inspecting.
I would remind you again what J. C. Philpot said, 24 years before the “Authorized Version” was altered, about who the scholarly men were.
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version
by J. C. PhilpotWe take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:
(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)
1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity.Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.
2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!
3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.
4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation.
Joe you have not addressed the men who were the elite scholars that gave us an altered Bible, nor have you addressed those manuscripts themselves.
Franklin Logsdon, a self professed friend of Dewy Lockman had these words to say about the 1881 Revison. “The publisher didn’t want it (Referring to the copyright of the ASV). It didn’t get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, “Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we’ll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable. Well, up to that time I thought the Wescott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You’d be surprised; If I told you you wouldn’t believe it. They haven’t gone into it just as I hadn’t gone into it, just taking it for granted.”
You are belittled as ignorant if you do not accept those manuscripts along with the work of Hort. The more I study what had transpired, the more amazed I am that they got away with it.
I haven't read everything you have posted. There's too much stuff here to read. What I'm asking is which bible do you trust? And what part of the scriptures do you have a problem with?
Coffee Break
I trust the Bibles that have a history. I do not trust the manuscripts that have no history, nor do I trust the men that gave us those manuscripts without a history.
There are only four manuscripts that are at the heart of the revolution against the Bible, and it was a revolution by men of questionable beliefs and motives. It is all recorded, we just need to examine the evidence.
Of those four manuscripts, which distinguished them selves by containing both Old and New Testament, three are presented to us by a man who had an open door to the Vatican. The fourth manuscript was called inferior to the three this man presented, because it didn't always agree with the other three manuscripts.
If the four are truly as old as they claim, why were they rejected by the church for 1,600 years? It wasn't like they were found in a cave.
There is just to much evidence against them for a rational person to accept them, once that person has examined all the evidence.
Posting Freak
Norm,
I have addressed these issues in probably hundreds of posts. You just don't agree with what I write. I have given you quotations from commentaries that I own and have in my possession from Westcott where he teaches the fundamentals of the faith that you claim these men don't believe. Of course, you know this because I've given you quotes from them before.
You have set up an impossible discussion. Anything that counters your view is not admitted in for evidence. Anyone scholar with credibility that counters your view, even if they are known to be Evangelicals, has their Christian position disavowed by you.
Philpot's piece of writing is utterly unconvincing except to the already convinced / unwilling to be convinced otherwise. This piece of writing came centuries after Erasmus. So his prediction of 1 John 5:7 is far from amazing. It's amazing how sold out he was to a verse. The oldest manuscript that has the verse actually in the text, and not scribbled in the margin, is only 300 years older than Philpot himself. You would think if this verse were authentic, this verse would be referred to in every discussion on the Trinity by the early church fathers. Why wouldn't it be? But you know all this because I've posted it multiple times.
His prediction of 1 Timothy 3:16 is not some incredible prophecy either. The manuscript discrepancies were known at that time. And I've given you lots of responses on why the deity of Jesus is blatantly obvious in new versions. And you can bring up a handful of verses where the KJV is clearer on the deity and I can bring up several where the deity is clear in new versions but where it is unclear or even absent in the KJV. I've done it. You've read the verses. But instead of taking a reasonable, moderate position and sticking to the KJV because you like it (which there is nothing wrong with that). You keep beating this drum and don't answer the questions I ask, but instead claim I'm the one not responding.
I've been studying this issue for nearly 25 years when at the time I held a view closer to your ballpark than where I am now. I read a different translation every year. That includes the KJV several times and versions like the NIV family several times. No translation that I've read teaches anything other than true Christianity. None of them teach Roman Catholic distinctives. The only one that I have read that does not teach true Christianity is the Watchtower's New World Translation of the Scriptures.
I've personally spoken to and met some of the supposed . . . learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity that are alive in this field today
That is a bunch of bologna on Philpot's part. Philpot couldn't be more off the mark. None of them are Roman Catholic. Some of them are called "anti-Catholic" by the Roman Catholics. And the charges of infidelity are unwarranted.
Furthermore, Philpot made a very bad prediction in that piece. However, you didn't paste that one when you did your copy-and-paste. Point 4 reads in its entirety . . .Philpot fails to "predict" that new versions strengthen the deity of Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5. And his prediction about "priest" replacing "elder" and "penance" in place of "repentance" are failed predictions.Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation. The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance."
Philpot lived in a time where the KJV was all there really was. He feared the unknown. He feared what he apparently did not understand. His writing is mixed with "on target" predictions in which the information was already known and failed predictions where he ventured out on his own fears. So I find it a bit comical that he's only on target when the information was already known. So the bottom line is that he didn't make any correct "predictions."
Norm,
The new translations are outstanding - generally speaking - just as the KJV was.
The new manuscripts are not based on 4 manuscripts. This is categorically false. They include all the papyri and even have some Byzantine readings that go away from the Alexandrian readngs (which by the way, just because something is Alexandrian doesn't make it wrong -- that is called the genetic fallacy. You should know, if you know Christian history, that lots of heretics came from Antioch. So using KJVO logic, we shouldn't trust the "TR". But that would be committing the genetic fallacy so I don't use that argument.).
Can you name which specific manuscripts the KJV is based on?
You need a new drum or you need to add some strings to your one-string guitar. You re-post the same things over and over. Reposting them doesn't make them more true. Plus, every time, I show up to counter you so that people in the forums know that they can trust their Bibles that you attempt to undermine their trust in. Don't you get tired of this?
Grace & peace to you.
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown
Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson
guest
The English Revised Version was such a huge improvement over the King James Version that the sect commonly known as the King James Only Movement is unable to find comparable fault with it, and therefore resorts to maliciously and libelously attacking the character and religious convictions of three or four of the men who served on the revision committees. The fact that the character and religious convictions of those three or four men had no significant influence upon the English Revised Version “seems” to escape their attention. Moreover, it “seems” to escape their attention that neither the English Revised Version of the New Testament nor the Greek text of the New Testament edited by Westcott and Hort published the same year, 1881, are used today to any significant extent. Furthermore, this sect typically ignores the very influential New Revised Standard Version because it is impossible to find any serious fault in it. What is more, all of the problems with the English Revised Version are absent in the New Revised Standard Version.
Exodus 19:18. And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. (KJV)
Exodus 19:18. And mount Sinai was altogether on smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. (ERV)
Exodus 19:18. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the Lord had descended upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently. (NRSV)
Matthew 4:2. And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. (KJV, 1611)
Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. (KJV, 1817)
Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. (KJV, 1824)
Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. (KJV, 1971)
Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered. (ERV)
Matthew 4:2. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. (NRSV)
Isaiah 63:1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3. I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
4. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
5. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
6. And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth. (KJV)
Isaiah 63:1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3. I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the peoples there was no man with me: yea, I trod them in mine anger, and trampled them in my fury; and their lifeblood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my raiment.
4. For the day of vengeance was in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
5. And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
6. And I trod down the peoples in mine anger, and made them drunk in my fury, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth. (ERV)
Isaiah 63:1. “Who is this that comes from Edom,
from Bozrah in garments stained crimson?
Who is this so splendidly robed,
marching in his great might?”
“It is I, announcing vindication,
mighty to save.”
2. “Why are your robes red,
and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press?”
3. “I have trodden the wine press alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their juice spattered on my garments,
and stained all my robes.
4. For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year for my redeeming work had come.
5. I looked, but there was no helper;
I stared, but there was no one to sustain me;
so my own arm brought me victory,
and my wrath sustained me.
6. I trampled down peoples in my anger,
I crushed them in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.” (NRSV)
For an accurate, contemporaneous history of the English Revised Version and a complete list of the revisers, please see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html
guest
Let us very briefly consider the history of the New Revised Standard Version. It begins with the parts of the Bible translated from the Hebrew and Greek by William Tyndale and the Bible translated by Miles Coverdale (1535) from earlier Bibles in Latin, German, and English. These works were edited by John Rogers and published under the name of Thomas Matthews in what is now known as Matthew’s Bible (1537). This Bible was the basis of The Great Bible (1539-1541), which is turn was the basis of the Bishop’s Bible (1568), which in turn was the basis is the King James Version (1611), which in turn was the basis of the English Revised Version (1881, 1884) and the American Standard Version (1901). The American Standard Version was the basis of the Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952, 1971), which in turn was the basis of the New Revised Standard Version (1989). The New Revised Standard Version has 378 years more history than does the King James Version.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks