Studies of the Original Texts

Ideally, begin by studying Hebrew and/or Greek (Greek especially). This doesn't necessarily mean Seminary- in some cases you can find high-quality lessons at some larger churches, even at no charge. My own church (approx. 2,300+) offers college-level Beginning & Advanced Greek in 27-week modules as electives during the Sunday School/ABF hours. A local Seminary Prof. has taught these for the past 18 years. After completion of both, a person has about the same capabilities in Greek as the average Seminarian! So look around for something like that, if you're interested.

Also, be sure to read BOTH sides of the text/translations issue. Read Riplinger, Ruckman, Waite, and others for their KJVO views; and read James R. White, Kevin Bauder, and many others for the counterpoint.

Don't let inflamatory words or claims be your guide- let the Holy Spirit guide you- and then draw your own conclusions. From some of my previous posts you may or may not be familiar with my position; but I have done my own research, and I know what I believe.

 

I believe history is a very important aspect. One should examine the history of versions and translations, how and when translations were made, etc. One should not examine the "Bible Version" issue *today* without looking at the "Bible Version" issue as it existed throughout the history of the Church.

Westcott's "The Bible in the Church" is *excellent* for a study of Bible history, although this book can be a little tough to find.

Here's some links you may find interesting:

Bible Researcher - AWESOME site for history as well as version issues.
English Bible History
Three Early Bible Translations

 

There are a number of books put out by the United Bible Society, The American Bible Society, and The Bible Society of South Africa. There are numerous books by Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland

 

Where to start your study. I have a testimony about this b/c I've done the Greek, Hebrew, 5-minute Lexicon study, Seminary, the whole shabang. I didn't really start learning what God said until I picked up and read with a believing heart a King James Bible. Reading and believing the words. As Corinthians says 'comparing spiritual things with spiritual' and through this kind of cross-referencing of what the Bible actually said (not a lexicon, commentator, scholar, or grammar said) I began building a real Bible believing, doctrinally sound, spiritually powerful Bible study that has not stopped yet.

 

What were you doing in seminary without a believing heart??? It is no wonder you have problems. I started seminary with a believing heart and it was not long until I became an exclusive user of modern translations because I believed what God said in his word. The solution to any problem with God's word is a believing heart. Had you started there earlier, you would have been far better off.

 

Larry, the Lord had mercy on me and answered every question I had. My trouble came from profs who wanted me to doubt the Bible. I have no trouble with Bible Believing preachers and teachers. And as far as doing better, I honestly dont know what your talking about .... ????? The point in my first message was that God wrote the Book and God gives the interpretation of the Book. Seminaries have the peculiar notion that linguists give the interpretation but I cant find that in my Bible anywhere. The Lord will absolutely bless a believing heart as he blessed mine and led me to believe his preserved words in the King James Bible that he used to bring in revivals such as never were before or after. In those days men had believing hearts, believing the Bible. Today men believe scholars and linguists, but I have never found that I should do that in my Bible or ever seen any fruits of that in history.

 

"What were you doing in seminary without a believing heart???"
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett:" looking for a cushy job without any heavy lifting"

This was not a serious response people, please continue with the topic of this thread. And that was:
"I want to do a thorough study of the ancient texts, translations, and versions. <...> where did you all begin your studies? What books, courses, etc. did you begin with?"

 

Great books for studies in manuscripts. Dean Burgon's "Mark 16:9-20", "Cause of Corruption", "Revision Revised", any book by Dr. Ruckman is excellent in dealing with manuscripts, Edward Hills "Bible Believing Study" and "The King James Bible defended" are both full of excellent manuscript histories, William Grady's "Final Authority" is excellent, Sam Gipps "Understandable History of the Bible" is good. You can find these at www.biblebelievers.com and from there search out the bookstore.

 

That's wonderful Brian. I have had the same experience WITH lexicons, grammar studies, etc for over 40 years now.

However, in a subsequent post you say…

While you do say that these men have authored these books for “studies in manuscripts”, I have read all of these men except Gipp and all these men (including Dr. Ruckman) use lexicons, commentaries, works by “scholars” and grammars.

I too am an avid reader of John Burgon (a scholar par excellence IMO). Any of his works contain a great deal of grammar and related lexicon work He was especially fond of the commentary work of the early fathers.

Finally, the KJV itself is the product of translators who were all highly pedigreed scholars, knowledgeable and skilled in the use of those Bible research tools for which you seem to disapprove.


HankD

 

Gipp is good, if u can get past issues of honesty n intelligence on his part.

vide: http://post1.com/home/amarillo/heresy.htm
search for "Gipp" n check out some of those links

 

I'm glad you started reading what the Bible actually said. It's great to be able to read the actual Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic God inspired, isn't it?

 

Fortunately, the Lord did for me too.

I never had these kind of profs for which I am thankful. The closest I have come to these kind of people is here on this board, where some are convinced that we should doubt the Word of God and question it because it is not the KJV. That is a shame that people hate the dissemination of the word so much that they will create doubt and confusion in the minds of others.

I didn't say antying about "doing better." I said you would have been better off had you had a believing heart in seminary. Then you could have learned more.

Proper Bible interpretation comes from Bible study. Linquists serve an important role in that. That is how you got your KJV. You believe scholars and linguists just like hte rest of us do. The problem you have is that you have contradicted doctrine of Scripture that God has revealed. If you have not seen fruits of scholars and linguists then you are dead. All fruit is the result of men who have studied the Scriptures in their original languages and translated them so that people all through church history have had the Bible in their own language. It is a shame you have departed from the practice of church history and the doctrine of the Scriptures. I hope you will come back to it with a believing heart.

 

Ruckman and Gipp?
If the final result is predetermined to be a KJV-Onlyist conclusion, then these would most certainly work......

 

Possibly. I knew these were men committed to academic honesty and integrity. They defended their positions from the Word with rigorous standards of exegesis and study. They did not simply declare other people to be wrong. They gave reasons for it. And in matters of liberty, they granted liberty and decency for people to disagree. In the end, you did not have to hold their position. You simply had to defend your own with Scripture rightly used.

In my over 6600 posts, I have very many times given solid, undeniable reasons for what I believe. My position is in fact the one held by the vast majority of orthodox Christianity for all of church history.

I am not taking all the MVs and leaving out the KJV and the TR, or declaring them to be inferior without reason. I have given reasons in other places why I say what I say. The KJV is an excellent translation. But it is 400 years old and based on the TR which is a demonstrably inferior text, compared ot the other options. But "inferior" in this respect is a slight matter of degrees. The TR has readings with little or no Greek manuscript support. It was formed by a textual critic who used less than a dozen of the more than 5000 manuscripts now available. It was changed at least 4 times prior to the translation of the KJV and we do not even have the TR it was translated from Scrivener's TR was edited on the basis of the KJV and Scrivener himself points out dozen's of the problems in the TR.

The KJV uses outdated language, uses words that need to be updated for modern times because those words have changed meanings. It uses stilted sentence structure and difficult grammar. For the modern reader, there are better choices in our own language. That does not mean the KJV is bad or wrong.

The MVs are generally better because they have a better textual base (using all manuscript evidence rather than only some of it). They are also translated into contemporary language just as the KJV was 400 years ago. The MVs have the same purpose that the KJV did back then. It is simply up to date and in the language that we speak.

I have often said I don't care what version (among the faithful ones) that someone uses. But whatever you use, you must have a proper doctrine of bibliology. That is where the KJVOs fall short. They have an admirable passion for God's word. They lack a biblical doctrine of God's word. Some of them are committed to intellectual dishonesty, having been confronted about their error and refused to repent of it. Others are simply mislead and are repeating what someone has told them. Either way the outcome is the same ... the biblical revelation about Scripture is compromised. That we must not take lightly.

I highly recommend this. But be aware that you can spend a lot of time chasing after the wind (in the idea of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes). You can get caught in a lot of foolish speculation (to use the words of Paul). These must be avoided. There is a great deal that can be gained from a very little study. In reality, the discussion about English versions is pretty useless. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV are all good choices and each has it benefits and drawbacks. They should be compared. Discussions about Greek texts is largely academic and probably useless for most. Both are discussions that I have been deeply involved in here.

Long story short ... I have given lots of reasons for my belief in this forum. There is no shortage of my defending it. What I resent from people like Bryan is the implication (or outright statement) that those who disagree with his position do not have a believing heart. That is highly offensive. There is no way he can know the state of someone's heart. To say that there is no fruit from modern versions is to have one's head in teh sand. Those are emotional arguments that have no place in honest discussion of these issues. We must be honest with the facts first and foremost.

I encourage you to study. It is a topic worthy of consideration. But be careful about getting bogged down in useless minutae. It is can be damaging to our life mission.