Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

here we go again!

isn't it though the truth that one can have confidence in whichever greek text used today, wether CT/MT/TR etc, that we have the word of God to us for today? Though one might hold CT to be closer to the originals, regardless which Greek text, we have an accurate Bible version?

And isn't this entire area really one in which we tread lightly, as really only scholars in this area can decide which text best, which versions better etc!

 

Applies ONLY to the originals though, as NO version is inspired by God in sense those were!

 

The NKJV was translated from the TR.

 

In Japan we use the Shinkaiyaku, based on the NASB. We have no choice since there has only been one TR/Byzantine based translation in Japanese history, and it was in Classical Japanese and is out of print. But yes, it is a pretty accurate translation and I can teach all the doctrine I need to out of the Shinkaiyaku.

Well yes. But if folk like jbh28 and Van want to make categorical statements that the critical texts are better and the Byzantine is corrupt, they should be able to argue intelligently about textual criticism and back up their statements. So I'll be waiting (but not breathlessly).

 

John, I didn't say that the Byzantine texts are corrupt. First, the "critical text" would be an eclectic text. The Byzantine would be a group of manuscripts. I wouldn't say that the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt. The critical texts(like UBS4 and NA27) use the Byzantine manuscripts along with others.

Please don't lump me in the same sentence as Van. I simply stated that I believed "that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR." I'm entitled to my opinion. If you believe the TR is better, ok. I have no problem with that. I wasn't here to argue about textual criticism. I was only making a correction. Please don't change what I said nor imply that I'm not willing to argue intelligently about textual criticism. I'm assuming you probably meant it more to van, so don't include my name with his.

 

Some still believe that "only begotten" is the better translation of monogenes. There's debate over that. The NASB also has "only begotten." It's not a matter here over "archaic" but a matter over correct understanding of what the term monogenes means.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

But, the critical texts basically ignore the Byzantine mss. Check out Metzger's writings. I don't have time right now to give you a quote, but quite often in his works (The Text of the New Testament, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, etc.) he commonly denigrates the Byzantine. It is a fundamental part of his method that the Byzantine is to be ignored. So UBS and NA will occasionally include a Western reading, but otherwise will be almost exclusively Alexandrian. So the modern critical texts (though they claim to be eclectic) are still basically Westcott and Hort. Even some eclectics object to them on those grounds. (See the recent Rethinking New Textament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black.)

I understand. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the confusion.

 

Just for the record, here is Van subtly accusing me of ignorance. I had already quoted this, but Van simply ignored my previous quote and statement and continues to obfuscate. (And of course he didn't deny calling Don and me "know-it-alls." Name calling.... )

And this thread is so far from the (very flawed) OP, that for him to accuse me of derailing it is ridiculous.

Now here is Van's precise statement about corruptions in the TR:

It's all pretty clear to me, no matter how Van wriggles and backtracks.

 

No problem

 

Coming back to the O.P., I wonder if anyone has read the excellent Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism by Benjamin Beddome?

Beddome was a Baptist minister in England during the 18th Century and was much used by God. I think what follows is an excellent testimony to to word of God.

Question 4. What is the word of God?
Ans. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God and the only certain rule of faith and obedience.

Are the O.T. and N.T. Scriptures the word of God? Yes. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim 3:16. Might not this revelation be imposed on us by evil spirits? No. For if Satan be divided against himeself how shall his kingdom stand? Matt 12:26. Might it not be intruded on us by wicked and designing men? No. Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles? Matt 7:16. Might it not be the work of pious craft in men? No. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, Rom 9:1.

Were holy men then moved to speak what they did? Yes. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet 1:21. Were they moved to write what they spoke? Yes. The Lord said, "Write the vision and make it plain upon tables, Hab 2:2. Does God own what men have thus written as His? Yes. I have written to him the great things of My law, Hosea 8:12. Were the writings of the O.T. inspired? Yes. For the prophecy came not of old time by the will of man, 2 Pet 1:21. And may the same be affirmed of those of the New? Yes. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God sent by His angel to His servant John, Rev 1:1.

Were the penmen of the sacred Sriptures satisfied of their own inspiration? Yes. The God of Israel said; the Rock of Israel spoke to me, 2 Sam 23:3. But might they not be deceived? No. We have not followed cunningly devised fables, 2 Pet 1:16. Did they write what they knew? Yes. That which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, 1 John 1:3. And what others who were their contemporaries knew? Yes. For this thing was not done in a corner, Acts 26:36. Did they take any undue methods to gain credit? No.My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 1 Cor 2:4. Had they no secular aims? No. For wherefore we both labour and suffer reproach, 1 Tim 4:10.

Is the word of God a rule? Yes. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, Psalm 119:105. Do we need such a rule? Yes. For we all like sheep have gone astray, Isa 53:6. Is the word of God a sufficient rule? Yes. The law of the LORD is perfect, Psalm 19:7. Is it a plain rule? Yes. The words of His mouth are all plain to him that understandeth, Prov 8:8-9. Is it an extensive rule? Yes. The commandment is exceedingly broad, Psalm 119:96. Is it an abiding rule? Yes. the word of the LORD endureth forever, 1 Pet 1:23. And is it the only rule? Yes. For if any man shall add to these things, God will add to him the plagues written in this book, Rev 22:18.

Are not unwritten traditions a rule? No. Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions, Matt 15:6. Is the authority of the church a rule? No. For our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, 1 Cor 2:5. Are the sentiments of great men a rule? No. The prophet and the priest have erred, Isa 28:7. Is the light of nature a sufficient rule? No. For it is said of those that were guided by it, The way of peace they have not known, Rom 3:17. Is the light within a certain rule? No. The way of a man is not in himself, Jer 10:23. Are not the examples of many a rule? No. Thou shalt not follow a crowd to do evil. Are not the examples of the good a sufficient rule? No. We must be followers of [them] only as [they] are of Christ, 1 Cor 11:1. May not what angels say be depended on as a certain rule? No. Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed, Gal 1:8. Or a voice from heaven? No. For we have a more certain word of prophecy, 2 Pet 1:19.


Beddome's book is published by Solid Ground Christian Books, ISBN 1-59925-052-7.

Steve

 

Folks, do NOT trust Van's opinion on "fair use." As a former editor/proof reader and a published author who has read up on the subject, I know that this copyright concept does NOT mean you can quote without giving the source. It means that if you are commenting, researching or otherwise examining a work, you are allowed to quote lengthy passages for that purpose without being in violation of copyright law. See what the US gov. says at: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

If you follow Van's example and quote extensively without sourcing, you are in violation of copyright law. This is what Van did in the OP. After I rebuked him for this, he then found and gave the source. And the source was not at all from a fundamental ministry. So again, his OP was "very flawed" because of these two reasons, and I stand by that.

 

I'm back and though I disagree with JoJ concerning the "better" text (W&H vs Scrivener) I would trust his scholarship and translation work above many/most here at the BB.

Van: One needs to define from scripturecontext the meaning of the "traditions of men" which also needs to be considered in the light of

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

This is another "sore" subject for Baptists - What is the church in organizational terms?​

Local only? or Local and Universal? How does 1 Timothy 3:15 apply in either case?​

Where is this "church" in the 21st century?​

Unlike the Church of Rome we have no Magisterium - each of us (in a way, including yourself) "doing what is right in our own eyes".​

And, whether you can admit to it or not, you are also a tradionalist in your own right Which is in reality not a criticism but a fact (after all you are a Baptist, which has it's own body of tradition complete with variants).​

HankD​

 

The reason that I posted the extract from Beddome's book was to show
1. That long before modern-day 'Fundamentalism' the particular Baptists believed unreservedly that the Bible was the very word of God.
2. That the Bible is its own evidence for its Divine inspiration. I am not sure that throwing words like infallibility, inerrance and plenary are either necessary or helpful.
3. That the old confessions and catechisms were founded upon the Scripture and not on the opinions of men.

As soon as you push the critical text into view you are causing division. I do not accept that the C.T. is the most accurate text. I realize that I am in a minority, but like JoJ I believe that the view of many textual crirics is changing in favour of the Traditional Text.

Beddome is using Matt12:26 in just the same way that the Lord Jesus did. Satan would not be supplying a text that has brought milions to the Lord.

Matt 7:16 is making the same point- that good is not going to come from a polluted source. Sinful men could not compose a text that converts people to Christ.

Thank you.

Steve