Does the Eclectic Text "Allow" Errors and Contradictions?

Hi Pastor Bob,

With all due respect, I must ask if you read my replies? Your assertion that there are contractions or errors of fact in the UBS text has been shown to be a fallacious construct, and yet you keep posting supposed examples.

I will put it in all caps this time:

BRUCE METZGER DOES NOT PUT A READING IN THE BODY OF THE TEXT WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT THE READING THERE IS 100% SURE TO BE THE ORIGINAL. THE READING IN THE APPARATUS MIGHT VERY WELL BE THE ORIGINAL RENDERING. THE CRITICAL TEXT IS A TOOL SO YOU CAN DECIPHER THE EVIDENCE FOR YOURSELF! AS SUCH, YOU CANNOT SAY THE TEXT HAS ERRORS BECAUSE ALL THE OPTIONS ARE ON THE PAGE!

If you wanted a thread on opinions of the editors as to what they think is most likely the original, then you would have a valid topic. But to use terminology "Error of Fact" in the text is simply misleading, confusing, and wrong. You cannot accuse someone of introducing an error in the text when they are printing all of the options and expect the reader to decide.

Best wishes,

Chick

 

Your Example is full of misinformation. First of all the extant mss evidence is not split 1% versus 99%. I count 31 mss, several early versions and Origen that all support eklipontos.

Furthermore, where does the Scripture say that the sun was eclipsed by the moon? There are lots of ways God can eclipse light. I take this at face value that God simply stopped the light through His supernatural act in the same way He tore the temple's veil. Whether the word is darkened, or eclipsled it makes no difference linguistically. The point is the light was supernaturally prevented from reaching earth.

Furthermore, you have selected an example that has a B rating in the apparatus. A B rating!! This means that the committee was divided on the likely rendering of the original. They want you Pastor Bob to decide for yourself. That is why they provide both renderings. The English versions you referenced chose the fully valid option of one of the readings in the apparatus.

Thus it is fallacious to assert that they tried to introduce an error--something they cannot do because they provide all the options for you to decide.

Chick

 

KJVonlyism in 1890: "I will take up the King James Bible;I consider it to be a perfect Bible." (Talmage T.D,vol.18,pg.255)


KJVonlyism preached in 1857 in the Gospel Standard. Philpots:"The AV we believe is the grand bulwark of Protestantism;the safegard of the Gospel and the treasure of the Church,and we should be traitors,in every sense of the word,if we consented in giving it up to be rifled by Puseyites,consealed Papist,German Neologians,Infidel Divines,Arminians,Socinians,and the whole tribe of the enemies of God and Godliness. To alter our Bible (AV) would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God..there would be two Bibles spread through out the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place. " (emphasis mine)


KJVonlyism preached by a Baptist in 1680:"A university man met Bunyan on a road near Cambridge.Said he to Bunyan,'how dare you preach when you dont have the original scriptures?' "Do you have them,the copies written by the Apostles and Prophets?" asked Bunyan,'No' replied the scholar,'But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.' "And I" replied Bunyan "believe the English Bible(the AV) to be a true copy too."(Burgess,McCreary,John Bunyan,the immortal dreamer,Anderson,Indiana:1928 Gospel Trumpet Co.,p.38)

So, as we can see here from these examples that what some call KJVonlyism,turns out to be what is called being a Bible believer.There is nothing "new" about it..

[ April 27, 2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Again, this is a caracature. They know what the options are. They give the options to the reader. They give their best analysis as to what they think is most likely the original, but they want the user to decide. There is no editor on this planet who knows what all the correct readings should be.

That is up to the MV's. They look at the apparatus, and not infrequently, they either choose a reading in the apparatus, or they footnote their text, giving the alternative reading. Frankly, I think the layman in the pew needs to have his head screwed on straight enough to realize that when the MV footnotes an alternative reading, that there is a possibility that it is the original reading.

Then all Bible sales are criminal, for none has the exact words of the original.

The ending of Mark is a lengthy discussion of its own. Suffice it to say that there are multiple endings in the evidence, and there is strong reason to believe that it is shorter than what is in the KJV. However, last I checked, the longer reading still makes it into all the MVs.

Again, I couldn't care less about quantity of MSS, with the reality that 1000 copies of an error is still an error.

Again, you miss the tone of the editors, they don't "assure us that the genuine text of Mark ends with 16:8" rather they offer their opinion, and present the available mss evidence, but they want the user to make up his own mind.

Human rational is needed in offering an opinion as to which reading is most likely the original. How else are they to do it? It would take divine special revelation to do any better--and I believe the canon was closed with Revelation, so I would reject it if Metzger came out and said that God had told him which ones were the correct readings.

The Greek texts that leave the reader with a biased choice is the TR and MT which does not give all the options, but rather gives the reader the impression that there were no variants in the passage!


Chick

 

KJVonlyism in 1890: "I will take up the King James Bible;I consider it to be a perfect Bible." (Talmage T.D,vol.18,pg.255)</font>[/QUOTE] I asked before when you quoted this but would you mind completing the reference so this source can be checked out?

Do you have a reference for this?

Who would? For that matter, who would want to give up any faithful translation to the "rifling of the higher critics"? They didn't deny the AV specifically. They denied the Bible in its original form and as traditionally understood.

Anyone with even a general understanding of this era would know to put this comment in context. During the 19th century, true Bible denying liberalism was born and eventually answered by "The Fundamentals" and the fundamentalists movement. Note that the Writers of "The Fundamentals" did not reject scholarship outright while using the AV, RV, and ASV to refute liberalism.

Did the writer put "(AV)" in here or did you?

Interesting that if indeed this quote is taken in context and represents the position of the author accurately... then he was 100% wrong. Modern translations have helped millions to understand the Word of God. For every instance where you can claim that a group using an MV departed from orthodoxy, I can show you at least one using the KJV that departed from biblical orthodoxy.

And who of our number do you think would disagree with Bunyon? I doubt however that he said "(the AV)". Especially in light of the fact that he had participated in rebellion to the "authorized church".

Do you really believe that Bunyon was referring to the KJV to the exclusion of the Geneva?

None of these quotes even if one accepted your bias states anything close to the form of KJVOnlyism we see today.

 

For which he spent 12 years in prison.

HankD