PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Why Revisions?



IMINXTC
Aug 8th 2008, 07:15 AM
I have the greatest respect and even admiration for the scholarship exhibited in these forums. And, truth be known, I could never presume to speak on the same level as those who have the courage to laboriously search and compare manuscripts in their zeal to promote our faith in the Word of God. When it comes to manuscript investigation and textual comparison, I am a layman. Like most of us (I think), I do my best to learn from the best.

And I would like to clarify the obvious: contrary to much rhetoric, most individuals involved in the fiercely debated issue of Bible versions are genuine, sincere believers, who deserve a fair, unbiased hearing. Far be it from me to argue on grounds I know little or nothing about.

When we allow ourselves to be drawn into the realm of personal attack, rudeness, and bitter, off-topic posturing... well, we are being played like fiddles, by the enemy of our souls.

And I would be sinning against the church and our Lord, if I were to present these questions and concerns just to start a fight.

But if truth can only be determined by scholastic excellence, we might as well just go have a pizza (if you're buying, I'm going with you)...
And who could deny the presence of a certain high-minded, over-bearing mentality in today's church, based upon intellectual prowess rather than upon the patience, love and lowliness of the Holy Spirit.?

So my questions are: Why revisions? Why, after 19 centuries do I need Textual Criticism? Did God Fail me from 1611 to 1890? And why am I in need of the curative measures of Westcott and Hort, let alone the revisons of Kittel, Gesenius and others? And if it all amounts to nothing, like so many tell me, why is it such an enormous concern among believers?

And I might risk one more question: Doesn't the public testimony and documented beliefs of these men come into play at all when it comes to correcting the Bible?

"Thy Word is truth." Jn 17:17

RogerW
Aug 8th 2008, 01:02 PM
I have the greatest respect and even admiration for the scholarship exhibited in these forums. And, truth be known, I could never presume to speak on the same level as those who have the courage to laboriously search and compare manuscripts in their zeal to promote our faith in the Word of God. When it comes to manuscript investigation and textual comparison, I am a layman. Like most of us (I think), I do my best to learn from the best.

And I would like to clarify the obvious: contrary to much rhetoric, most individuals involved in the fiercely debated issue of Bible versions are genuine, sincere believers, who deserve a fair, unbiased hearing. Far be it from me to argue on grounds I know little or nothing about.

When we allow ourselves to be drawn into the realm of personal attack, rudeness, and bitter, off-topic posturing... well, we are being played like fiddles, by the enemy of our souls.

And I would be sinning against the church and our Lord, if I were to present these questions and concerns just to start a fight.

But if truth can only be determined by scholastic excellence, we might as well just go have a pizza (if you're buying, I'm going with you)...
And who could deny the presence of a certain high-minded, over-bearing mentality in today's church, based upon intellectual prowess rather than upon the patience, love and lowliness of the Holy Spirit.?

So my questions are: Why revisions? Why, after 19 centuries do I need Textual Criticism? Did God Fail me from 1611 to 1890? And why am I in need of the curative measures of Westcott and Hort, let alone the revisons of Kittel, Gesenius and others? And if it all amounts to nothing, like so many tell me, why is it such an enormous concern among believers?

And I might risk one more question: Doesn't the public testimony and documented beliefs of these men come into play at all when it comes to correcting the Bible?

"Thy Word is truth." Jn 17:17

I couldn't agree more! I was contemplating this very issue last night and the thought occurred to me...what does the Bible become for the textual critic if there were yet a new discovery of even older manuscripts and these differed from those that already exist? I too question the need for so many revisions. I go by the old addage here; "if it aint broke, why try to fix it?"

Many Blessings,
RW

IMINXTC
Aug 9th 2008, 06:23 AM
Roger that! "Older is better..." a concept which is suggested in the columns of most bibles today. Is this tried and tested truth?

A 'dear' sister in the Lord dismissively remarked to me, speaking on this issue, "We know so much more now." Do we?

Without my glasses, I might be handed 3-alarm chili in lieu of 3-bean salad. In the end, it is I, who will pay the price.

In my ministry (no reflection on me or my ability to discern truth), I must reach the one who is face down on the street for Christ. God forbid that I should attempt that with inferior tools (speaking of the scholarly notations which suggest that my bible may not agree with older manuscripts, thus, may not be the 'real' bible).

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." Ps 19:7

Friend of I AM
Aug 9th 2008, 02:53 PM
I have the greatest respect and even admiration for the scholarship exhibited in these forums. And, truth be known, I could never presume to speak on the same level as those who have the courage to laboriously search and compare manuscripts in their zeal to promote our faith in the Word of God. When it comes to manuscript investigation and textual comparison, I am a layman. Like most of us (I think), I do my best to learn from the best.

And I would like to clarify the obvious: contrary to much rhetoric, most individuals involved in the fiercely debated issue of Bible versions are genuine, sincere believers, who deserve a fair, unbiased hearing. Far be it from me to argue on grounds I know little or nothing about.

When we allow ourselves to be drawn into the realm of personal attack, rudeness, and bitter, off-topic posturing... well, we are being played like fiddles, by the enemy of our souls.

And I would be sinning against the church and our Lord, if I were to present these questions and concerns just to start a fight.

But if truth can only be determined by scholastic excellence, we might as well just go have a pizza (if you're buying, I'm going with you)...
And who could deny the presence of a certain high-minded, over-bearing mentality in today's church, based upon intellectual prowess rather than upon the patience, love and lowliness of the Holy Spirit.?

So my questions are: Why revisions? Why, after 19 centuries do I need Textual Criticism? Did God Fail me from 1611 to 1890? And why am I in need of the curative measures of Westcott and Hort, let alone the revisons of Kittel, Gesenius and others? And if it all amounts to nothing, like so many tell me, why is it such an enormous concern among believers?

And I might risk one more question: Doesn't the public testimony and documented beliefs of these men come into play at all when it comes to correcting the Bible?

"Thy Word is truth." Jn 17:17

First of Sflash, let me say that this is a wonderful topic and a beautiful post. So much of what you say about people bitting back and forth about one another regarding vary minor things is very true, and I think we all need to make sure that we follow the example you've given to us thus far, by applying more grace to our testimonies. Thanks again for that input unto itself.

That being said, as far as the initial topic goes. I have to say that I'm not really a scholar when it comes to textual revisions myself, but I think some of the reasons behind the revisions does have to do with various words/phrases being mistranslated over the years, and many of those scholars believe that these revisions have taken away from the overall message. Problem being that in making these endless revisions, many have missed the prevailing point that the bible makes, that being the scriptures themselves can only be spiritually discerned, and are not meant to be discerned naturally.

Despite this, I do think it benefits somewhat to understand the context/times in which things were used, however, when one goes on and takes the simplicity of certain passages, and then turns a minor word translation into a whole doctrine, that's where I think we have some problems and I don't think the Holy Spirit is at work in doing things like this.

Knowledge is only truly profitable when surrounded by love. Without it, knowledge itself becomes a passing vanity. I thank you sincerely for your testimony, and wish for your continued posting on this and other issues. God bless in Christ.

Athanasius
Aug 9th 2008, 02:55 PM
Are we talking revisions, or redaction?

Brother Mark
Aug 9th 2008, 03:12 PM
So my questions are: Why revisions? Why, after 19 centuries do I need Textual Criticism? Did God Fail me from 1611 to 1890? And why am I in need of the curative measures of Westcott and Hort, let alone the revisons of Kittel, Gesenius and others? And if it all amounts to nothing, like so many tell me, why is it such an enormous concern among believers?

And I might risk one more question: Doesn't the public testimony and documented beliefs of these men come into play at all when it comes to correcting the Bible?

"Thy Word is truth." Jn 17:17


Just so you know, the quote you used did not come from the 1611 version of the KJV. Also, the original KJV text also included the apocrypha.

You can view an original 1611 here...

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible

I can hardly read it as, in reality, it's in another language than what I speak today.

crawfish
Aug 9th 2008, 03:24 PM
It's a valid question. The reason is that, over time, even words and phrases in the same language come to mean different things. Culture changes and the way we process information changes. Sometimes, a revision is simply necessary to speak to a new generation in a way that the antiquated versions cannot.

If revisions have no place, then we should all throw away everything from the NIV to the KJV and all learn Hebrew and Greek. :)

scourge39
Aug 9th 2008, 04:41 PM
The 1611 KJV has the same textual problems as any other translation. The translators chose not to include them in later printings when it was released. Also, English word usage changes over time. Words can fall in and out of popular usage. As such, revisions serve the purpose of updating and clarifying how words are used for current readers. As for manuscripts, they don't all contain the same contents. That's when scholars must decide between one or the other when attempting to translate a passage that contains textual problems. NT scholar, Greg Beale, who taught my NT Interpretation course in seminary, calls textual criticism a 'necessary evil' that doesn't change any foundational Christian doctrine in the end.

IMINXTC
Aug 9th 2008, 08:56 PM
Yeah, I believe I see this in the subject of "para-phrasing." I know I have been called to task, and have seen others sternly corrected for putting things in their own words, rather than sticking to the exact scriptural reading. I know para-phrasing can sometimes get out of hand, especially when not confirmed by a rightful-dividing. I quit para-phrasing years ago.

But I believe the English language is a vast storehouse, containing similes;
And sometimes words obviously have more than one meaning. And I certainly agree that words take on different meanings through times and cultures. And I am aware of the needed scribal-error, grammar, spelling and punctuation revisions cited in history. (redaction)?

On these terms, KJVO becomes a rhetorical logo much like PRO-LIFE. It doesnt quite tell the whole story. And its worth mentioning here: There exists that hard-line school which equates the KJV with the autographs, as if the KJV corrects the autographs. This makes the KJV an inspired bible. I cannot begin to list the problems this presents. (not enough room in these forums). But if their claim is true... I'm all ears.

But there remains a thorny issue... The received text, or the underlying Greek and Hebrew text of the English bible.