Is the Byzantine Text a "late" text?

[Will J. Kinney]

>:>>>Hi Scott, can you tell me then where I can get a copy of "the complete, inspired "Word" of God in several forms."?<:<<<<<

Without stealing Scott's thunder, I just wanted you to know you can buy a parallel bible at any Bible bookstore -- I just bought one with KJV, NIV, NLT, and NASB -- Those should cover all the inspired word!!


I don't think you are stealing Scott's "thunder"; this is probably something like he would say too. This is no thunder, but a wheezy little "pop" in the wind. You Christians who are not King James only, have no infallible, pure, complete words of God, do you? You recommend several conflicting versions, none of which you really believe 100%. You have conflicting authorities, which do not follow the same texts or have the same meanings in hundreds of verses. So, when these "reliable translations" come in conflict, you then go to another authority to decide the issue. This judge or arbiter is either your own mind and learning, your pastor, or some scholar you admire who tells you what God really said. He then becomes the final authority.

What you all fail to recognize is the sovereignty and providence of God who has kept His promises to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away. The nasb, niv, esv, isv, rsv, etc. are all based on some of the most corrupt texts known to man. These versions all depart many times from the Hebrew texts and often not in the same places. None of these versions even contain the same verses in the New Testament. Each contains various false doctrines and absurd statements, proving themselves to be false witnesses.

Yet you keep up a pious appearance by saying they are the inspired word of God, even though they conflict in hundreds of places from each other. Funny position to hold, indeed.

Your modern scholars rummage through the manuscripts trying to select the best reading and give it the correct meaning in an effort to restore God's words to match the originals - at least this is the professed process they claim to be about in their endeavors. Yet God has already been through this process and given us His pure words in the KJB and kept His promises to preserve His inspired words in all their purity.

There are no proven errors in the KJB and God's mark of approval is clearly on this Book like that of none other. It is vigorously defended as being God's infallible word, and just as vigorously attacked by those who would give us 4 or 5 conflicting authorities to replace it and smile when they tell us "these are the words of God", or at least close enough, maybe, perhaps, but new findings are on the horizon, and every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

It seems the Bible speaks of a falling away from the faith in the last days, and Christ asks "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Gee, I wonder if God knows something we don't. Do you think maybe the present attack on the true words of God and supplanting them with confusion and uncertainty might have anything to do with this falling away?

Just some thoughts. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Will Kinney

 

[aefting]

So, when these "reliable translations" come in conflict, you then go to another authority to decide the issue. This judge or arbiter is either your own mind and learning, your pastor, or some scholar you admire who tells you what God really said. He then becomes the final authority.

How is this any different than what you do? In the world there exist translations (KJV, NIV, NAS, ESV, NTW, RSV, etc) and texts (TR, MT, CT, individual readings within those text families) that conflict with each other and you, or your pastor, or some scholar you admire must decide what God really said. You just happened to pick the KJV. There are even multiple versions of the KJV -- you have to pick which reading is what God said. Do you use your own judgment, a pastor's judgment, or some other scholar's judgment that you trust?

Andy

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

They aren't directly inspired in their wording, not even the KJV. Even the KJV translators themselves deny this notion.

Why do you keep dragging the KJB translators into the discussion?? Why do you rely on them instead of what God said?? Thanks for re-affirming your position.

Translations do have derived inspiration due to their accurate representation of the message transmitted in the originals.

So,you are a GMO(God's message only).What about what God said in Matt.24:35,Prov.30:5,and Psalm.138:2??? Do you believe it? yes no?? Why not? Are you putting what some man said above what God said?? Why??

You can "consider" anything you want... but the KJV does not have inspired words.

Oh?? Prove it.

"Word of God" is a proper noun. It is correctly capitalized.

Where in the word of God(KJB)is the word capitalized when not speaking of the Lord Jesus hrist??? Chapter and verse please...

Yes, and this is the proper definition of "perfect" to be applied to faithful, "reliable" translations.

OK.Which one of the 200+ conflicting authorities is "reliable"??? Which one is the perfect word of God???? ONE PLEASE!!!

The originals, as a direct work of God, were inspired and did not have errors of any kind. Translations are not direct works of God so they are subject to "imperfections" in as much as they are not facsimiles of the originals. However, the substantial agreement of text and complete agreement of doctrine testifies that God's Word is preserved.

That is a LIE!!!What about 2nd Tim 3:16?? That was no referece to any original.What Tim had in his lap was Scripture!!! Read verse 15 if you doubt it!!!

 

[HankD]

What about 2nd Tim 3:16?? That was no referece to any original.What Tim had in his lap was Scripture!!! Read verse 15 if you doubt it!!!

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

First: what Timothy had was indeed the original letter from Paul written in his own hand while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Second: Let me ask this question: In what form was the Scripture from vs 15 that Timothy knew from a child? Hebrew? Greek Septuagint? or 1611 KJV?

If it was the Hebrew, then is the Hebrew Scripture still the Word of God today?

HankD

 

[Scott J]

Double post

[ November 12, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Why do you keep dragging the KJB translators into the discussion??

Because they have alot more authority to say whether they were operating under inspiration or else operating within their own choices than you, Will Kinney, or any other KJVO. Their words demonstrate that they knew their work was not inspired.

Why do you rely on them instead of what God said??

The better question is why do you rely on them instead of what God said. They made translation choices that they claimed as their own. They suggested that to get the true sense of scripture we compare various translations.

Thanks for re-affirming your position.

No problem.

So,you are a GMO(God's message only).

God's Word is the message.

What about what God said in Matt.24:35,

What language do you think those words were spoken in? Is that language a living language or is it a dead language? When that promise was made, were the words in writing or was the statement related to His power to make authoritative, certain declarations?

Prov.30:5,

This a great text to support the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the originals. However, the KJV does not contain God inspired words. It is a fallible translation of a fallible original language text... which was created by a man who probably wasn't even saved nor qualified to "re-write" scripture via inspiration.

and Psalm.138:2???

Note that it says His "word" not His "words". One's 'word' is what they mean, not the 'words' used to communicate the meaning.

Do you believe it? yes no?? Why not?

Yes I believe all of these scriptures. What I reject is your errant attempts to co-opt these texts to prove KJVOnlyism. If your interpretations were correct (which they aren't), none of these citations allude to the KJV.

Are you putting what some man said above what God said??

No. I am putting what God actually said above what you and other KJVO's twist God's Word to say.

Why??

Because you are not authoritative- the text of the Bible provides no proof whatsoever for your conclusions and the example of scripture disproves your position (ie. Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1).

Oh?? Prove it.

KJVOnlyism, and thus direct inspiration of the words of the KJV, is false because it is not true. It is not scripturally proven. It is not historically proven. It conflicts with the examples of scripture. The KJV does contain minor errors that have been discussed here at length. And, KJVOnlyism conflicts with the facts of history.

Furthermore, KJVOnlyism is not a historically held doctrine. There is no proof that anyone before the last 50 or so years held that the words of the KJV were God inspired. If this were a necessary truth, God would have revealed certainly to those of the great 18th, 19th, and early 20th century revivals.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> "Word of God" is a proper noun. It is correctly capitalized.

Where in the word of God(KJB)is the word capitalized when not speaking of the Lord Jesus hrist??? Chapter and verse please... </font>[/QUOTE] The capitalization rules adopted and followed by the KJV translators are not binding by any stretch. They also do not capitalize personal pronouns used for God.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes, and this is the proper definition of "perfect" to be applied to faithful, "reliable" translations.

OK.Which one of the 200+ conflicting authorities is "reliable"??? Which one is the perfect word of God???? ONE PLEASE!!! </font>[/QUOTE] Which dictionary is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which doctor is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which car is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!! Which manuscript of the NT is reliable? ONE PLEASE!!!.... etc.....etc....etc....

Your inability to understand and reconcile details of the inspiration, promised preservation, transmission, and translation of God's Word is not a valid premise for limiting the Bible to a single version or text tradition.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The originals, as a direct work of God, were inspired and did not have errors of any kind. Translations are not direct works of God so they are subject to "imperfections" in as much as they are not facsimiles of the originals. However, the substantial agreement of text and complete agreement of doctrine testifies that God's Word is preserved.

That is a LIE!!!</font>[/QUOTE] You have provided absolutely no proof that it is a "LIE!!!". Again, your lack of discernment does not make what I believe or know a lie.

What about 2nd Tim 3:16?? That was no referece to any original.What Tim had in his lap was Scripture!!!

Yes... and it wasn't the KJV.

It might have been Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. We aren't told.

Read verse 15 if you doubt it!!!

This whole passage supports what I believe and contradicts what you believe. It is full of qualifiers for scripture. Namely, what scripture teaches, its uses, and what it does for the student.

None of the MV's I use fail on any of these qualifiers. They are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." You KJVO's have yet to prove otherwise.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
You Christians who are not King James only, have no infallible, pure, complete words of God, do you?

No. Nor do you in spite of all your ranting and railing. We do have the infallible, complete Word of God.

You recommend several conflicting versions, none of which you really believe 100%.

Show me how the versions I recommend conflict in the doctrine they teach. Your attempt to create a straw man is crafty but not valid.

You have conflicting authorities, which do not follow the same texts or have the same meanings in hundreds of verses.

I have one ultimate authority. He inspired a message to mankind over 1400 years that was completed about 1900 years ago. I have 100% confidence that everything He wanted to reveal originally is preserved to me... even though He did not see fit to preserve it by facsimile.

So, when these "reliable translations" come in conflict, you then go to another authority to decide the issue.

Yes. The first place is to always compare scripture with scripture to see if the conflict is real or not. Second, research possible reasons for the disagreement.

The one thing we shouldn't do is simply trust the work of Erasmus and a group of 17th-19th century Anglicans.

This judge or arbiter is either your own mind and learning, your pastor, or some scholar you admire who tells you what God really said.

This charge is far more valid directed at you than at us. KJVOnlyism is completely dependent on the works of long dead scholars and the vain imaginations of recent men.

He then becomes the final authority.

Your authority is not scripture. It does not teach what you believe.

So unless you claim to have divine inspiration that is in fact advanced revelation beyond the Bible, you are the one who is trusting men... not us.

What you all fail to recognize is the sovereignty and providence of God who has kept His promises to preserve His words till heaven and earth pass away.

No. We refuse to accept the arbitrary choice of the KJV as the single English manifestation of that promise.

The nasb, niv, esv, isv, rsv, etc. are all based on some of the most corrupt texts known to man.

But they are based on something biblical... which cannot be said for KJVOnlyism.

None of these versions even contain the same verses in the New Testament.

Neither did the mss used by Erasmus to create the TR.

Each contains various false doctrines and absurd statements, proving themselves to be false witnesses.

Only if one ascribes to your predisposition to find these things and reject all reasonable explainations. You have a bias to maintain and demonstrate that you will not allow facts to get in the way.

Yet you keep up a pious appearance by saying they are the inspired word of God, even though they conflict in hundreds of places from each other.

You do the same with the historical documents behind the modern KJV. The mss of the Byzantine tradition, conflict, Erasmus' mss conflicted, the editions of the TR, conflicted, the editions of the KJV conflict,...

You are caught up in your own trap.

Your modern scholars rummage through the manuscripts trying to select the best reading and give it the correct meaning in an effort to restore God's words to match the originals - at least this is the professed process they claim to be about in their endeavors.

Your RCC scholar Erasmus did the same thing. However, he was also influenced by RCC tradition, the Vulgate, and politics.

Yet God has already been through this process and given us His pure words in the KJB

I consider neither Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, nor the KJV translators to be God... perhaps that is where we differ?

and kept His promises to preserve His inspired words in all their purity.

But He did not say it was the KJV, did He? You said that.

There are no proven errors in the KJB

You mean there are no errors that you are willing to accept as errors.

and God's mark of approval is clearly on this Book like that of none other.

That is subjective conjecture at best. Statistically, there are more born again Christians worldwide since the advent of modern textual scholarship as well as a greater percentage.

It is vigorously defended as being God's infallible word, and just as vigorously attacked by those who would give us 4 or 5 conflicting authorities to replace it

Who is attacking it? Do I attack my daughter when I tell her that her room isn't perfectly clean? No.

To say the KJV isn't inspired of God and does not contain perfect words is not an attack on the KJV... it is, and is intended to be, an attack on the false KJVO doctrine.

and every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

This indictment works far better on KJVO's. God did not establish your false teaching and the damage being done to the body of Christ by the conflict it raises is certainly not pleasing to Him.

It seems the Bible speaks of a falling away from the faith in the last days, and Christ asks "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

I hope He finds us faithful to Him and not a manmade translation or a false doctrine that makes an idol of it.

Gee, I wonder if God knows something we don't.

Without a doubt. And the behavior of onlyists gives us some insight into perhaps why God didn't allow a word for word perfect transmission of the originals... the Bible was not given to be idolized.

Do you think maybe the present attack on the true words of God and supplanting them with confusion and uncertainty might have anything to do with this falling away?

Yes I do. As English continues to change, those who refuse to allow updated translations will deny believers personal access to the Word of God. Soon, the Bible will be what a few leaders say it is.

Satan already used this trick with the Vulgate and appears to be using it again with the KJV.

Just some thoughts. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Heard, rebutted, rejected...

Notably you used a command that Christ used of His words to refer to your own words. Do you think you are speaking with His authority? This seems to be further indication that your mind is your final authority seeing as you equate your words to Christ's by using parallel wording.

I have to say "no thanks" to the gospel according to Will Kinney.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by kman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

What would prove beyond all doubt that the Alexandrian text, or the Western text, or the Byzantine text existed *as a text* in the early centuries? Answer: the existence of an actual MS with a demonstrably Alexandrian, Western, or Byzantine text from the period before Constantine. Do we have any such MSS with a demonstrably Alexandrian text? Yes -- P75 (c. 200 A.D.). Do we have any such MSS with a demonstrably Western text? Yes -- P38 (c. 300 A.D.). Do we have any such MSS with a demonstrably Byzantine text? No. Not one.

Well..50 years ago you'd have to say the same thing about the Alexandrian text as well..since p75 hadn't been discovered yet.

What text type was used in the Greek/Asia Minor areas pre-Constantine? We don't know do we?

Dr. Robinson stated that we don't have any manuscript, versional, or patristic evidence from before the mid-4th century for the areas of southern Italy, Greece and modern Turkey.

Why is it a big leap to think that post-Constantine they used the same text type they used pre-Constantine? (ie. Byzantine text)?</font>[/QUOTE]With all due respect to Dr. Robinson, we *do* have very early pre-Nicene patristic sources from Asia Minor and Italy in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers like Clement of Rome (c. 96 A.D.), Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 A.D.), and Polycarp of Smyrna (d. 155 A.D.). That's the good news. The bad news is that their Scriptural citations and allusions are so loose and imprecise that it's impossible to determine with any confidence what kind of text they used. What it does tell us, though, is that the earliest Christian writers in Italy and Asia Minor showed surprisingly little concern for the exact wording of the text of the New Testament.

What leaps did Westcott and Hort make when they believed the Alexandrian text was the early text even though they had no hard evidence? I don't see that respectable Byzantine priority figures such as Maurice Robinson are doing any different.

Actually, W&H *did* have evidence... the indirect evidence of early Fathers like Origen. What they didn't have was any *direct* evidence in the form of an early Greek MS.

And perhaps one day somebody will dig up their "p75".

If that happens, it will establish beyond all doubt the early existence of the Byzantine text and revolutionize New Testament textual criticism. Some, like Robinson, will continue to argue for total Byzantine priority, and will have hard evidence to back it up. Others will be more cautious and adopt a positon like that of Sturz, who believed that the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine streams were all early independent forms of the text existing side by side.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

If the Peshitta really was 2nd C., and if it really was the common text of the ancient Syriac church, how do you explain the fact that no Syriac Father before 400 A.D. used it?

The Syrian church used it. </font>[/QUOTE]The only way we can know what text the Syrian church used before 400 A.D. is by analyzing the Scriptural quotations in the writings of the Syrian Fathers who *belonged* to the Syrian church and who lived before 400 A.D. In every single case, the Scriptural quotations of the early Syriac Fathers show either a Diatessaron or an Old Syriac text. *None* of them show a Peshitta text. So if the Syrian Church used the Peshitta in its earliest centuries, how come not a single one of its earliest writers used it? Where is the *hard evidence* of the existence of the Peshitta before 400 A.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]The Peshitta from 2nd Century is very ancient version because these common people within the Syriac Church continued to be loyal to it. They came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made little differences to them if these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

If the Peshitta really was 2nd C., and if it really was the common text of the ancient Syriac church, how do you explain the fact that no Syriac Father before 400 A.D. used it?

The Syrian church used it. </font>[/QUOTE]The only way we can know what text the Syrian church used before 400 A.D. is by analyzing the Scriptural quotations in the writings of the Syrian Fathers who *belonged* to the Syrian church and who lived before 400 A.D. In every single case, the Scriptural quotations of the early Syriac Fathers show either a Diatessaron or an Old Syriac text. *None* of them show a Peshitta text. So if the Syrian Church used the Peshitta in its earliest centuries, how come not a single one of its earliest writers used it? Where is the *hard evidence* of the existence of the Peshitta before 400 A.D.? </font>[/QUOTE]The Peshitta from 2nd Century is very ancient version because these common people within the Syriac Church continued to be loyal to it. They came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made little differences to them if these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not. </font>[/QUOTE]How do you know these "common people" of the 2nd C. continued to be "loyal" to the Peshitta when there's not one single shred of evidence it even existed back then? What evidence do you have that the "common people" of the 2nd C. used the Peshitta rather than the Diatessaron or the Old Syriac, which we *know* existed back then?

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott, I noticed you talk a lot about P75 as though this is an Alexandrian text and somehow proves your point. Are you aware of this report?


In Hills' chart showing the family tree of manuscripts, Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 are listed with the other Alexandrian MSS.

Quoting again from "The Identity of the New Testament Text"

Both P66 and P75 have been generally affirmed to belong to the "Alexandrian text-type." Klijn offers the results of a comparison of Aleph, B, P45, 1166 and P75 in the passages where they are all extant (John 10:7-25, 10:32 - 11:10, 11:19 - 33 and 11:43-56). He considered only those places where Aleph and B disagree and where at least one of the papyri joins either Aleph or B. He found eight such places plus 43 where all three of the papyri line up with Aleph or B. He stated the result for the 43 places as follows (to which I have added figures for the Textus Receptus, BIBS 1946):

P45 agrees with Aleph 19 times, with B 24 times, with TR 32 times.

P66 agrees with Aleph 14 times, with B 29 times, with TR 33 times.

P75 agrees with Aleph 9 times, with B 33 times, with TR 29 times.

P45, 66, 75 agree with Aleph 4 times, with B 18 times, with TR 20 times.

P45, 66 agree with Aleph 7 times, with B 3 times, with TR 8 times.

P45, 75 agree with Aleph I time, with B 2 times, with TR 2 times.

P66, 75 agree with Aleph 0 times, with B 8 times, with TR 5 times.

As for the eight other places,

P45 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 1 time, with TR I time.

P66 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 5 times.

P75 agrees with Aleph 2 times, with B 3 times, with TR 4 times.

60 (Each of the three papyri his other readings as well.)

Is the summary assignment of P66 and P75 to the "Alexandrian text-type" altogether reasonable?

- Page 56 -

If the above confuses you a little, you may be excused. But it demonstrates the knot that naturalistic critics have tied themselves into when refusing to face the fact of the Received Text.
Most tampering of the text took place before 200 AD and most was done in the Western areas furthest from the location of the original autographs.

Colwell says, "The overwhelming majority of variant readings were created before the year 200." Scrivener says, "The worst corruptions to which the NT his ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was
composed."

Scott, you might consider dropping this argument about good ol' P75.

Will K

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott, a few scholars who have adopted your present view of preservation of the Scriptures seem to have reached a different conclusion than the one you purport to believe. I think these men are at least honest in that they logically follow their presuppositons to its inevitable conclusion.

What do you think?


http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_10_app.html

Still more, some who develop the W-H theory of textual criticism have come to have doubts about the very possibility of the church's possession of the authentic text of the New Testament. In his "Introduction" to Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, Edward F. Hills quotes F.C. Conybeare:

The ultimate (N.T.) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable.20

Hills quotes Kirsopp Lake to the same effect:

In spite of the claims of W-H and of vonSoden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.21

Dr. Epp
".we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries...." [Prof. Eldon Jay Epp, Studies in Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, Eerdmans 1993 p87.

Now this may be the personal doubt of scholars who lack the faith that God preserves His Word, seeing to it that not one word falls to the ground; but it may also be the final working out of the very principles of W-H.

First, an integral part of the W-H theory is its sharp attack on the KJV. The "preface" of the RSV is typical:

...the KJV has grave defects ... these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation ... The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying ... We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T., and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

D. A. Carson makes the same charge: "the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscule manuscripts..."11 To adopt the W-H theory is to accept this criticism of the KJV.

Second, mere tradition ("We have learned to love the KJV,, etc.) cannot, in the end, hold out against other, vehement attacks being made upon the KJV from conservative and Reformed quarters. Carson writes:

The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior (sic!) saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians.12

He quotes Edwin H. Palmer, spokesman for the NIV, attacking the KJV almost fiercely:

Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable.13

Third, preachers weaken the people's trust in the reliability of the Bible which they use when they so often and so casually say, "The reading of the KJV is wrong; the better reading is..." I find evidence of mistrust when, in a debate in a Bible study class, a member will say, "Maybe the Greek is different," or, somewhat cynically, "Probably, the original has something else."

http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv3.htm

In the matter of textual research not one would start with the carefully stated truth in the Bible that God has promised to preserve His Word. This promise is not merely to "truth of the Word" but the words themselves.


Psalm 12:6,7 The words of the LORD are pure Words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

John 10: 35 The scripture cannot be broken.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever.

I Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.

Psalm 138:2 Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.


Thus, though Stewart Custer might, under no circumstance will we leave our Bibles in the hands of those who would chop, change, add, delete according to "the accepted principles of textual criticism."


. THE NEUTRAL METHOD LEADS TO SKEPTICISM CONCERNING THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT

The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." And Griesbach’s outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text. Lachmann also in 1831 continued in the same skeptical vein. He believed that from the extant manuscripts it was not possible to construct a text which would go any farther back than the fourth century. To bridge the gap between this reconstructed fourth century text and the original text Lachmann proposed to resort to conjectural emendation.

As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable." Later (1941) Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, delivered the following, judgment: "In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall."

H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its; nature, must be and remains a hypothesis." And R. M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott, you and James White and many other Christians on this board insist that a translation cannot be inspired. Where did you get this idea? Seminary or the Bible itself?


Can a Translation be Inspired?

I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.

In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

Will Kinney

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

Scott, I noticed you talk a lot about P75 as though this is an Alexandrian text

That's because Scott is correct. P75 *is* an Alexandrian text. P75 agrees with B as closely as any two MSS of the Lake group agree with each other, and we *know* that the Lake group MSS are direct copy descendents.

Quoting again from "The Identity of the New Testament Text"

Both P66 and P75 have been generally affirmed to belong to the "Alexandrian text-type." Klijn offers the results of a comparison of Aleph, B, P45, 1166 and P75 in the passages where they are all extant (John 10:7-25, 10:32 - 11:10, 11:19 - 33 and 11:43-56). He considered only those places where Aleph and B disagree and where at least one of the papyri joins either Aleph or B.

And that last sentence is the reason why Klijn's study (which was comparing a very specific kind of relationship between Aleph, B, and the papyri) cannot be used to assert that P75 is *not* an Alexandrian MSS. Textual relationships are established by considering *all* places where two MSS agree. When you compare the *total* amount of agreements and disagreements between P75 and B, it's obvious that they are *very* closely related. So if B is Alexandrian, P75 is Alexandrian. Klijn himself clearly acknowledges this in the very same study Pickering cites (a fact Pickering conveniently fails to mention in his "Identity of the NT Text"):

"...P75 appeared to show a text which is in very close agreement with B. This means that we can say with Martini who studied the relationship between P75 and B that the archetype of P75 and B must go back to a time 'non piu tardi della fine del seculo II' [not later than the end of the 2nd C.]. This conclusion cannot be doubted." (A.F.J. Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts, Part Two, 1949-1969, p. 38).

Scott, you might consider dropping this argument about good ol' P75.

Will K

Scott, you keep on using "good old P75" because you are absolutely right -- P75 is without any question an Alexandrian MS.

Will, you might consider dropping Pickering's flawed, misleading, inaccurate, and out-of-context misuse of Klijn's study.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Scott, I noticed you talk a lot about P75 as though this is an Alexandrian text and somehow proves your point. Are you aware of this report?

Are you debating a phantom or is there another Scott in this thread? I haven't written anything about P75. Perhaps I missed something or you have me confused with someone else.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Archangel7:

Will, you might consider dropping Pickering's flawed, misleading, inaccurate, and out-of-context misuse of Klijn's study.

Thanks Archangel7. I read Pickerings stuff a while back and was unfortunately deceived.

That is what irks me the most regarding the entire textual issue..there is alot of deception, false statements, and poor scholarship that leaves one wondering who is telling the truth.

Who do you suggest are reliable trustworthy witnesses to the textual issue? Books? Articles?

-kman

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Scott, I noticed you talk a lot about P75 as though this is an Alexandrian text and somehow proves your point. Are you aware of this report?

Are you debating a phantom or is there another Scott in this thread? I haven't written anything about P75. Perhaps I missed something or you have me confused with someone else. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, Scott, if we have the wrong person. Kman, perhaps? He's mentioned P75.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Scott, you and James White and many other Christians on this board insist that a translation cannot be inspired. Where did you get this idea? Seminary or the Bible itself?

The Bible. It tells us who is qualified to write scripture and speak from God.

The KJV translators do not qualify... nor has any one else since the Apostle John died.

Can a Translation be Inspired?

Yes. But that isn't the question. The question is "What proof is there that a translation was inspired and what are the qualifications of the translators?"

Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe.

Your only problem here is that you have dishonestly portrayed what you opponents believe. Many of us do believe we have God's inspired Word. We reject the notion that we have inspired words.

He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.

You have aptly demonstrated that you are not an expert on what others believe. I disagree with your KJVOnlyism but believe we have exactly what God meant to tell us.

It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired?

Because scripture testifies of the fact that God inspired scripture and set forth qualifiers as to who that inspiration would come through.

Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.

No. I reject the notion that you, operating from you preconceived biases, are a source for infallible interpretation of scripture.

Even the scripture you allude to is a guarantee of the truth of Christ's prophecies, not that the exact wording of the whole Bible was going to be written down and preserved without blemish throughout history.... but, if you want to persist in this notion, I once again challenge you to tell us which manuscript represents this perfect preservation and to list its succession from the originals.

I will get to the rest later.

 

[HankD]

For a translation to be inspired the translation would have to be "God-breathed" and the product of "holy men of God who spake".

The Scripture says "who spake" not "who translated".

Inspiration is focused upon the person receiving a direct revelation from God.

I can't find "who translated" anywhere in the Scripture as relating to a "second-hand" inspiration.

If a person really believes that God "inspired" the KJV of the Bible then they ought to join the Church of England, have their children sprinkled and not remain a Baptist that He should give such power to these Anglican clerics who held to paedo-baptism (for instance) and persecuted our fore-fathers (another for instance).


HankD

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.

In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.

I doubt such a "translation" was necessary since the writer, Moses, spent time in direct contact with God. Whether God inspired Moses to translate the words or God gave Moses the words of Joseph in Hebrew without Moses ever knowing the Egyptian words is not even relevant, Moses was an inspired holy man of old and prophet. The KJV translators were not.

A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.

A pearl of wisdom in an ocean of non-sense.

I agree with everything in your statement. Of course, our disagreement would begin when you limited the "God given text" to whichever unknown edition of the TR used by the KJV translators then extend to your limitation of the "inspired word of God" to the KJV.

I note that you used "word" and not "words". That simple change allowed me to agree with you.

God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.

Questions: If the TR has readings drawn directly from the Latin Vulgate without any Greek support, does that mean that either all the Greek or else the TR contains "foreign matter"?

Have you found the Greek ms that matches the TR word for word? Which one is it? If you haven't then how do you arrive at the conclusion that the TR and only the TR is the "same water" as the originals?

If the KJV ever strays from the TR, does that mean that one or the other is not of the "same water"?

There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.

Also penned by an inspired writer... not Anglican or RCC scholars.

If no translation can be inspired of God,

Faithful translations have derived inspiration as they communicate the same message as the originals. However, the words are the choices of translators.

then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.

You can write a statement like this and then object to the differences in the various Bible versions?

You have just made a terrific case for why the existence and use of multiple English translations of God's inspired Word is perfectly legitimate. Thanks.

" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.

It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture.

It should also be noted that this passage does not say that Timothy had a facsimile of the originals, an inspired copy, nor an inspired translation. It doesn't say that "all scripture" is translated or transmitted by inspiration. It says scripture is "given" by inspiration. Who did God give it through? Prophets and holy men of old.

In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".

Also, "in fact", this is a straw man argument. To argue that the originals were directly inspired does not negate the argument that copies and translations have derived inspiration due to their content.

So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God.

And when someone tells you that a translation is "inspired" you should ask them "by a direct act of God or as derived by faithfulness to the message of the originals?".

If someone tells you that a translation has inspired words, you should ask them to give you proof which would include the biblical qualifications of the translators. Their denial of being inspired would also be a strong indicators that they WERE NOT INSPIRED.

If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.

Will Kinney

Or the third option, they refuse to accept your interpretation as the infallible rule.