isn't the greek text though what is to be known as/ called "Word of God?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Book Review: Understandable History of the Bible
- Thread starter franklinmonroe
- Start date
isn't the greek text though what is to be known as/ called "Word of God?"
I think we need to back up a bit here. The "Word of God" refers to the logos of theos, and as I said before logos means that which fulfills a divine purpose. So if a translation does not convey the intended message, it no longer is the "Word of God" according to how I use the term. Now if we want to talk about scripture, the written inspired words of God on a page, we can.
I think we need to back up a bit here. The "Word of God" refers to the logos of theos, and as I said before logos means that which fulfills a divine purpose. So if a translation does not convey the intended message, it no longer is the "Word of God" according to how I use the term. Now if we want to talk about scripture, the written inspired words of God on a page, we can.
Jesus was /is the Logos of the Father became Human flesh and dwelt among us, but the written word of God was in the original manuscripts, so the current Greek/hebrew texts can be seen as being the "word of God"
franklinmonroe
Active Member
I think you have exposed the polar-opposite position from Gipp. It may well be that what he was insinuating with his statement about Greek manuscripts "translated literally" not being the Word of God was that he believes that God's Word can only be found in the KJV English text.isn't the greek text though what is to be known as/ called "Word of God?"
Why would he imply that only the KJV is the Word of God? Certainly for Gipp, no Greek manuscript individually is the Word of God (either due to copist errors, or the fragmentary and incomplete nature of MSS); neither are the Greek manuscripts collectively the Word of God because there are readings in the KJV that are not found in ANY Greek MS.
[I hope to show later that Gipp actually does state that the KJV is the only source of "perfect" God's Word in any language (Greek, French, etc.) today.]
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you have exposed the polar-opposite position from Gipp. It may well be that what he was insinuating with his statement about Greek manuscripts "translated literally" not being the Word of God was that he believes that God's Word can only be found in the KJV English text.
Why would he imply that only the KJV is the Word of God? Certainly for Gipp, no Greek manuscript individually is the Word of God (either due to copist errors, or the fragmentary and incomplete nature of MSS); neither are the Greek manuscripts collectively the Word of God because there are readings in the KJV that are not found in ANY Greek MS.
[I hope to show later that Gipp actually does state that the KJV is the only source of "perfect" God's Word in any language (Greek, French, etc.) today.]
he does not than see the originals as the ONLY inerrant/inspired word of God in the truest sense? And that the best greek/hebrew text reconstructred friom them would indeed by the word of God?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Here is what Gipp states just a little further in this chapter --he does not than see the originals as the ONLY inerrant/inspired word of God in the truest sense? And that the best greek/hebrew text reconstructred friom them would indeed by the word of God?
While on the subject of a common language, let me point out that many opponents of the infallibility of the Authorized Version say that if God put a perfect Bible in English, He is also obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language. There must be a perfect Bible in German, French, Japanese and all of the other languages of the world. Unfortunately for them, this argument will not stand. ...
Gipp then goes on to argue that English has been the only global language in history. He dismisses Latin, but does not mention Greek. From here it is just a short step for give argue that God didn't merely choose English, but rather that God specifically choose the KJV English --But why the Authorized Version? Who says we have to use only this particular translation? Why couldn't some other version be perfect in English instead of the Authorized Version?
To get the answers to these questions, we will have to take our hands off each other's throats long enough to examine the evidence which has come down to us through history. ...
To get the answers to these questions, we will have to take our hands off each other's throats long enough to examine the evidence which has come down to us through history. ...
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is what Gipp states just a little further in this chapter --While on the subject of a common language, let me point out that many opponents of the infallibility of the Authorized Version say that if God put a perfect Bible in English, He is also obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language. There must be a perfect Bible in German, French, Japanese and all of the other languages of the world. Unfortunately for them, this argument will not stand. ...Gipp then goes on to argue that English has been the only global language in history. He dismisses Latin, but does not mention Greek. From here it is just a short step for give argue that God didn't merely choose English, but rather that God specifically choose the KJV English --
But why the Authorized Version? Who says we have to use only this particular translation? Why couldn't some other version be perfect in English instead of the Authorized Version?
To get the answers to these questions, we will have to take our hands off each other's throats long enough to examine the evidence which has come down to us through history. ...
Guess the Apostles missed up, suppossed to have penned it down in the English of the day!
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Differences in the Second Edition
I copied from the online First Edition for my convenience in earlier posts. But there are significant differences from the online edition and my book edition (mostly additions in the Second) and they are not necessarily an improvement.
For example, after making assertions without providing any supporting evidence like "the Greek text used by the Authorized Version had been the only text used by Christians for centuries" (page 41-42, his bold) he also adds this --
I copied from the online First Edition for my convenience in earlier posts. But there are significant differences from the online edition and my book edition (mostly additions in the Second) and they are not necessarily an improvement.
For example, after making assertions without providing any supporting evidence like "the Greek text used by the Authorized Version had been the only text used by Christians for centuries" (page 41-42, his bold) he also adds this --
...Thus, whoever it was who tried to get Christianity to use any other version is the party who has truly caused all the division in the cause of Christ.
A simple parable will illustrate this truth. Imagine for a moment that a sweet, godly old grandmother is sitting in her rocking chair reading her Bible. She has a King James Bible just as her parents used and as heir parents before them. She loves the Lord and loves to sit for hours reading His words.
One day a college professor come into her livingroom and snatches the King James Bible out of her hands and replaces it with a "more modern" translation. He tells her, "Read this! It's easier to read than your old, archaic King James Bible".
She looks up, bewildered, then meekly pleads, "But I want to use my old King James".
Suddenly her antagonist goes into a rage and screams, "You're causing division in the cause for Christ".
Now who was the real problem here? ...
Is this truly a "parable"? I don't see any analogy or comparisons being made. What does this have to do with history? I don't see any historical facts presented here. Does this promote unity? The tone seems very mean-spirited to me.A simple parable will illustrate this truth. Imagine for a moment that a sweet, godly old grandmother is sitting in her rocking chair reading her Bible. She has a King James Bible just as her parents used and as heir parents before them. She loves the Lord and loves to sit for hours reading His words.
One day a college professor come into her livingroom and snatches the King James Bible out of her hands and replaces it with a "more modern" translation. He tells her, "Read this! It's easier to read than your old, archaic King James Bible".
She looks up, bewildered, then meekly pleads, "But I want to use my old King James".
Suddenly her antagonist goes into a rage and screams, "You're causing division in the cause for Christ".
Now who was the real problem here? ...
Last edited by a moderator:
I copied from the online First Edition for my convenience in earlier posts. But there are significant differences from the online edition and my book edition (mostly additions in the Second) and they are not necessarily an improvement.
For example, after making assertions without providing any supporting evidence like "the Greek text used by the Authorized Version had been the only text used by Christians for centuries" (page 41-42, his bold) he also adds this --...Thus, whoever it was who tried to get Christianity to use any other version is the party who has truly caused all the division in the cause of Christ.Is this truly a "parable"? I don't see any analogy or comparisons being made. What does this have to do with history? I don't see any historical facts presented here. Does this promote unity? The tone seems very mean-spirited to me.
A simple parable will illustrate this truth. Imagine for a moment that a sweet, godly old grandmother is sitting in her rocking chair reading her Bible. She has a King James Bible just as her parents used and as heir parents before them. She loves the Lord and loves to sit for hours reading His words.
One day a college professor come into her livingroom and snatches the King James Bible out of her hands and replaces it with a "more modern" translation. He tells her, "Read this! It's easier to read than your old, archaic King James Bible".
She looks up, bewildered, then meekly pleads, "But I want to use my old King James".
Suddenly her antagonist goes into a rage and screams, "You're causing division in the cause for Christ".
Now who was the real problem here? ...
Based upon the language and attacks and weird statements from the KJVO crowd, does THAT reflect the fruit of the Holy Spirit?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Chapter 6: The Witnesses (& another difference in editions)
This chapter starts out describing manuscripts (materials and writing styles). Sam Gipp does a rather poor job with these subjects; perhaps I'll write more on that later. But the following is so intellectually dishonest, that I'm not sure I can go any further into the book. The quote below comes under the heading of Lectionaries (page 96, my underscore) --
This chapter starts out describing manuscripts (materials and writing styles). Sam Gipp does a rather poor job with these subjects; perhaps I'll write more on that later. But the following is so intellectually dishonest, that I'm not sure I can go any further into the book. The quote below comes under the heading of Lectionaries (page 96, my underscore) --
Let's just say that somebody 2,000 years from now dug up a NASV and a King James Bible. They turn to John, Chapter 1. In the King James it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
In the NASV it says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was a god".
Two scholars get to bumping heads on it trying to establish which reading was accurate. They looked for a witness, and they came across a songbook. They come to lectionary 1522, and say, "Look here. this what the church was singing out of. Don't you think that would be right? This book says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This thing that says 'NASV' isn't very good".
In this way, lectionaries are valuable witnesses of the text.
He has appallingly misquoted the NASB! Just so we can be sure, here is the genuine reading of John 1:1 in the NASB --In the NASV it says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was a god".
Two scholars get to bumping heads on it trying to establish which reading was accurate. They looked for a witness, and they came across a songbook. They come to lectionary 1522, and say, "Look here. this what the church was singing out of. Don't you think that would be right? This book says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This thing that says 'NASV' isn't very good".
In this way, lectionaries are valuable witnesses of the text.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Gipp not even close to being accurate! The NASB is exactly, word for word, including punctuation and capitalization, the same as the KJV! Yet Gipp makes the NASB appear in the reader's mind as if it has heretically rendered this verse. Why didn't he just use the NWT as his example? And it is no mistake: he states "NASV" twice. Hiding behind a fictitious "let's just say" is NOT acceptable; this is outrageous behavior for a Christian. Gipp is completely bankrupt of credibility with me.
Last edited by a moderator:
This chapter starts out describing manuscripts (materials and writing styles). Sam Gipp does a rather poor job with these subjects; perhaps I'll write more on that later. But the following is so intellectually dishonest, that I'm not sure I can go any further into the book. The quote below comes under the heading of Lectionaries (page 96, my underscore) --Let's just say that somebody 2,000 years from now dug up a NASV and a King James Bible. They turn to John, Chapter 1. In the King James it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".He has appallingly misquoted the NASB! Just so we can be sure, here is the genuine reading of John 1:1 in the NASB --
In the NASV it says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was a god".
Two scholars get to bumping heads on it trying to establish which reading was accurate. They looked for a witness, and they came across a songbook. They come to lectionary 1522, and say, "Look here. this what the church was singing out of. Don't you think that would be right? This book says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This thing that says 'NASV' isn't very good".
In this way, lectionaries are valuable witnesses of the text.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Gipp not even close to being accurate! The NASB is exactly, word for word, including punctuation and capitalization, the same as the KJV! Yet Gipp makes the NASB appear in the reader's mind as if it has heretically rendered this verse. Why didn't he just use the NWT as his example? And it is no mistake: he states "NASV" twice. Hiding behind a fictitious "let's just say" is NOT acceptable; this is outrageous behavior for a Christian. Gipp is completely bankrupt of credibility with me.
Does he bother to quote where the ole KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as "It!"