Church sign #2

[Bob Krajcik]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Why should a modern translator, paid by the number of words in his work, leave out something that belongs in the opinion of some, unless he/she respects God's word enough to not add to nor subtract from it?

Reading your post, the implication of your words seems to be that you think the words do not belong in the KJV. Am I understanding you correctly? And if as it seems, you do not think they belong there, how do you know they do not belong there? If your conclusion is different than mine, do you think we should face off with rocks ready to throw at each other, or instead water balloons?

 

[robycop3]

I know what has and what has not been proven. What IS proven is that there are no two Bible versions alike, and what is NOT proven is that there's only ONE correct version. After all, the Four Gospels that make up the backbone of the New Testament are much more different within the same version than the versions themselves are different from one another.

I wuz thinking more along the lines of a snowball battle. As a former baseball pitcher who still pitches batting practice to Senior League & high school players, I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of any given snowball formed by my hands from God's snow. Each one is a little different from another, but if I've packed it correctly, I can throw it with decent velocity and a high degree of accuracy. They're kinda like different Bible versions, formed by men from God's word.

And no, I wouldn't visit such a church sight unseen, as it's obvious to me that it's already infected with at least one false doctrine. If I wanna see/hear bunk, all I hafta do is turn on TBN on the boob tube.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

...I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of any given snowball formed by my hands from God's snow. Each one is a little different from another, but if I've packed it correctly, I can throw it with decent velocity and a high degree of accuracy. They're kinda like different Bible versions, formed by men from God's word.

I think I understand your simile and so better understand your conviction. Thanks.

Myself, it is my opinion there is enough of the gospel found in various of the versions to bring life and immortality to light. I still recommend the KJV, my conviction being it is based on superior texts and superior translation techniques.

2 Timothy 1:10 (KJV) But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Interestingly, I just listened to a message on shortwave radio from someone, and as I understood them, they were saying that those that say use only the KJV want to keep people lost, in the dark.

Therefore, they must be anti-KJV. Also, I have found no reason for making the claim one version or the other will cause one to miss salvation.

That must make the anti-KJV some sort of “only” so perhaps the venom, any rocks, or water balloons that have been hurled at the ones with the KJV sign could be retrieved, and used to hurl at the anti-KJV ones, since, as one said, possibly those with the sign are not the right sort of “only” since they used the moniker KJV rather than KJB.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

 

[Ransom]

SaggyWoman asked:

What do you think?

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. (Rom. 16:17)

Sure does make Paul's instructions easier when they advertise themselves.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Bob, now that was pretty funny. Air flush!

lacy

 

[robycop3]

Bob Krajcik: I think I understand your simile and so better understand your conviction. Thanks.

You're welcome. As a Sola Scriptura person, I simply reject extra-Scriptural doctrines.

Myself, it is my opinion there is enough of the gospel found in various of the versions to bring life and immortality to light. I still recommend the KJV, my conviction being it is based on superior texts and superior translation techniques.

But unless/until that alleged superiority can actually be PROVEN, it's still only a guess.

2 Timothy 1:10 (KJV) But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Interestingly, I just listened to a message on shortwave radio from someone, and as I understood them, they were saying that those that say use only the KJV want to keep people lost, in the dark.

That's the other side of the spectrum from the extreme KJVO position. While I utterly reject any and all aspects of the KJV-Only myth, I certainly don't reject the KJV itself. Neither the KJV nor its translators are responsible for the set of false doctrines created around the KJV, those doctrines first published collectively by a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL and spread by two dishonest "Baptists" who weren't too hesitant to plagiarize and invent. The KJV was around long before this silly myth men made about it, and, God willing, it will still be here after that silly myth is destroyed.

Therefore, they must be anti-KJV. Also, I have found no reason for making the claim one version or the other will cause one to miss salvation.

Agreed.

That must make the anti-KJV some sort of “only” so perhaps the venom, any rocks, or water balloons that have been hurled at the ones with the KJV sign could be retrieved, and used to hurl at the anti-KJV ones, since, as one said, possibly those with the sign are not the right sort of “only” since they used the moniker KJV rather than KJB.

While KJB isn't entirely incorrect, neither is KJ"V". After all, it's a VERSION, and not "the" Bible, to the exclusion of all others. Seems the NAS"B" onlies could make the same claim.

And again, I would NOT attend a church that displays that sorta sign, as it tells me it's already infested with at least one false doctrine already. Every one of who are vets of these discussion boards have seen that false breeds false, regardless of the topic. Therefore, that church is more likely to contain more false doctrines than one who doesn't advertise a false doctrine.

 

[Ziggy]

BobK: Well, it seems to me the text is not there. Make what you will of that, taking away the numbers that identify the passages will not change the fact the text is not there.

Very true. However, when I go to a church that uses a particular MV for preaching or in the pew, I tend to devote my attention to the text of those verses that *are* there, and not to the text that might be missing in some MSS, even if I disagree regarding the underlying text of those versions.

This is especially the case when I preach at those NIV- or NASV-based churches (they do exist, even within Baptist circles) -- I don't fight (with water balloons or shotgun) against the text that is *not* there, but proclaim instead -- for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness -- the text that *is* there. The hearers definitely profit thereby far more than had I discoursed and complained about those passages that are *not* present.

And, BTW, rather than memorize a slew of chapter/verse designations where content is not present, I would put the Navigators to shame by suggesting Ziggy's memorization exercise whereby one can memorize 72 whole verses (KJV and probably also other versions) in less than 10 seconds:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying" (check it out in your electronic Bible programs): 10 whole verses in Exodus, 27 whole verses in Leviticus, 35 whole verses in Numbers.

Go for it.

Time's up.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by robycop3:
But unless/until that alleged superiority can actually be PROVEN, it's still only a guess.

"Proof" is not a concept associated with textual criticism. In fact "proof" is a concept properly associated only with mathematics.

What a textual critic does is collect and evaluate the evidence. The evidence collected is the same for both positions, but the evaluation of that evidence is based on very different criteria.

The Alexandrian-superiority criteria is, in my opinion, considerable less rigorous than the Byzantine-superiority criteria. Additionally the Alexandrian-superiority criteria seem to have been designed to specifically point to the Alexandrian textform and away from the Byzantine textform.

When both sets of rules are used to examine the collected manuscript evidence the more rigorous nature of the Byzantine-superiority rules tips the balance well in favor of the Byzantine textform being the best candidate to accurately reflect the original readings.

 

[Bob Krajcik]

Ziggy,

I agree with what you are saying about using what is there, and for me it is easy to determine as my trusty KJV has a great binding to keep the pages all together, so I know right where the verses are.

Say, that is interesting about those 72 verses.

 

[Ziggy]

DocC: the more rigorous nature of the Byzantine-superiority rules

Let me play devil's advocate here:

It would be helpful, Doc, if you would state *which* specific criteria of the "Byzantine-superiority position" are more "rigorous" and "tend to tip the balance" against the supposed "less rigorous" criteria regarding Alexandrian superiority? The general view tends to be simply "counting noses" versus what is supposedly a more scientific evaluation of the data on the basis of internal and external criteria.

So, what principles favoring the Byzantine-superiority position indeed are more compelling than those on the other side? And further, what happens when the Byzantine text itself differs from the TR or KJV under this scenario? Should one follow the Byzantine manuscripts, or stay with the TR/KJV, despite evidence that runs contrary to such? Seems like these are legitimate questions.

 

[AtHisFeet]

Does anyone really believe that these signs actually bring anyone into the church? I'm all for putting thought provoking signs up that will maybe get people driving by to think... but 98% of the unsaved people driving by dont even know what "KJV" means... they see that and think "Huh... whats KJV mean?"

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Ziggy:
It would be helpful, Doc, if you would state *which* specific criteria of the "Byzantine-superiority position" are more "rigorous" and "tend to tip the balance" against the supposed "less rigorous" criteria regarding Alexandrian superiority?

When comparing the two methodologies it became apparent to me that the Byzantine-superiority position is much more rigorous and well thought out than the Alexandrian-superiority criteria. For instance, the Alexandrian-superiority argument from genealogy is flawed: (as stated by Dr. Maurice Robinson)

The argument from genealogy. This hypothesis claims that all manuscripts of a texttype -- no matter how numerous -- have descended from a single archetype (parental ancestor) of that texttype. One therefore need consider only the archetype form, which becomes but a single witness in competition with the remaining archetypical "single-witnesses" of other texttypes. This argument -- established from a hypothetical stemmatic diagram -- effectively eliminated, in Hort's view, the "problem" of the Byzantine Textform's overwhelming numerical superiority.

In rebuttal to that argument, Dr. Robinson goes on to say,

The genealogical argument was never actually applied to the New Testament text by Hort, and in fact has never been so applied by anyone. As Colwell noted, Hort utilized this principle solely to "depose the Textus Receptus," and not to establish a line of descent. His "stemmatic diagram" was itself a pure fabrication. (See Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158. Colwell stated in 1947 that "genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts in such a way as to advance our knowledge of the original text of the New Testament." ("Genealogical Method: Its Achievements and Limitations," Studies, p. 63). Yet at the time of Colwell's statement, the stemmatic approaches of Hoskier (to the Apocalypse) and of Von Soden (to Jn. 7:53-8:11) had been in print for about 20 and 45 years respectively. Colwell doubtless would have declared the same today regarding the approach of Hodges-Farstad to the same portions of Scripture. The principle remains: genealogical stemmatics have not been applied successfully to the New Testament Greek documents because such cannot be applied to a textually "mixed" body of manuscripts. Kinship in such a case is remote in the extreme, and the mixture within the manuscripts varies not only from book to book but even within chapters of the same book (See Thomas C. Geer, Jr., "The Two Faces of Codex 33 in Acts," Novum Testamentum, 31 [1989] 39-47, for a demonstration of this point).

The second great theory of Alexandrian-superiority is that of widespread conflation. (Again, as per Dr. Robinson, as will be all of my responses)

Widespread conflation. (the combining of readings from two or more source documents) was claimed to have prevailed among Byzantine-era manuscripts, but was claimed not to occur in early Alexandrian or Western documents. This argument supposedly showed the Byzantine Textform to be "late," having been created by combining readings of the "early" Western and Alexandrian texttypes. Hort provided a mere eight examples to "demonstrate" this point, and then proclaimed this state of affairs "never" to be reversed.

To which Dr. Robinson replies:

Even though a hypothetical stemma might "demonstrate" that "a majority of extant documents" may only have descended from the text of a single archetype (one branch on the genealogical "tree"), Hort was not able to establish that the Byzantine majority of manuscripts were genealogically dependent (and therefore belonged to a single branch of the stemma). Nor could he disallow that the essential archetype of the Byzantine Textform might not in fact be the autograph text itself rather than a later branch of the stemma. The virtual independence of the Byzantine-era manuscripts (as mentioned earlier) alone suffices to refute Hort's genealogical claim regarding the entire Byzantine/Majority Textform.

Next was the claim of the total absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century AD.

Hort claimed a total absence of "distinctively Byzantine" readings from manuscripts, versions, and Church Fathers before the mid-fourth century AD. Hort considered this argument to "prove" that readings found exclusively in later Byzantine manuscripts had no known early support and therefore absolutely could not have existed prior to AD 350. Hort was extremely adamant on this point.

To which Dr. Robinson replies:

Over 150 "distinctively Byzantine" readings have been found in papyrus manuscripts predating AD 350, even though totally unattested by versions and Fathers. (Hort emphatically maintained that, were this principle overthrown, his entire hypothesis would have been demolished). (See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), pp. 137-230.)

And:

The origin of the Byzantine Textform was alleged to be the result of an authorized revision in the fourth century. Hort used this argument to demonstrate how the Byzantine Textform could have been a "later" development, yet suddenly overwhelm the entire Greek-speaking church from AD 350 onward.

Dr. Robinsons goes on to say:

There never has been a shred of evidence that an "authorized revision" of the Greek New Testament text ever occurred, and the Greek church itself has never claimed such. (Hort maintained that, apart from such formally-authorized revision, there would be no way possible to explain the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform). (See John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classics rep. ea., n. d. [1883]), pp. 276-294; Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, pp. 157-159, 164-169.)

That should be enough to get the discussion rolling.

The general view tends to be simply "counting noses" versus what is supposedly a more scientific evaluation of the data on the basis of internal and external criteria.

Yes, the general or "popular" view is often a popular myth with very little connection to reality.

And further, what happens when the Byzantine text itself differs from the TR or KJV under this scenario? Should one follow the Byzantine manuscripts, or stay with the TR/KJV, despite evidence that runs contrary to such? Seems like these are legitimate questions.

We seek the evidence and follow truth, not a slavish emotional commitment to either the TR or the KJV.

 

[Ziggy]

DocC: We seek the evidence and follow truth, not a slavish emotional commitment to either the TR or the KJV.

Ok, so then, Doc, (still being the devil's advocate): what *really* should we make of those who -- like Waite, like Moorman, like Hills, like Letis, etc. -- make a major issue of favoring the Byzantine or majority text whenever it agrees with the KJV or its underlying TR, but who generally oppose or at least seem to minimize the significance of the Byzantine or majority text when it differs from the KJV or its underlying TR (e.g. Moorman's book published by Waite, "When the KJV departs from the 'Majority Text'"? Some clear statements on this matter seem to be needed.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Ziggy:
Ok, so then, Doc, (still being the devil's advocate): what *really* should we make of those who -- like Waite, like Moorman, like Hills, like Letis, etc. -- make a major issue of favoring the Byzantine or majority text whenever it agrees with the KJV or its underlying TR, but who generally oppose or at least seem to minimize the significance of the Byzantine or majority text when it differs from the KJV or its underlying TR (e.g. Moorman's book published by Waite, "When the KJV departs from the 'Majority Text'"? Some clear statements on this matter seem to be needed.

Each of the variant readings would have to be examined individually on a case-by-case basis, and an informed decision made, but it is the epitome of ignorance to slavishly adhere to not just the TR, but one edition of the TR, such as Waite, et alii, do. There are over 30 editions of the TR, all different, and the one being championed by Waite, et alii, did not even exist until Scrivener compiled it in 1894. It seems rather silly to me to claim God preserved something for all generations that did not exist until 1894!

 

[Ziggy]

DocC: it is the epitome of ignorance to slavishly adhere to not just the TR, but one edition of the TR, such as Waite, et alii, do. There are over 30 editions of the TR, all different, and the one being championed by Waite, et alii, did not even exist until Scrivener compiled it in 1894. It seems rather silly to me to claim God preserved something for all generations that did not exist until 1894!

Agreed! And an excellent comment (although not addressing the issue of what happens when the Byzantine text differs from the text of the TR [any edition]; some further comment on this point would still be appreciated.

But then, Doc, how does your above statement square with your church's doctrinal statement (1) as well as with your own (apparent?) 1998 membership in Waite's Dean Burgon Society (2), which organization *mandates* as a doctrinal position the Scrivener TR alone as the only Greek text that can be considered closest to the originals (3)?

I'm not trying to "get" you by this -- just trying to understand what appear to me as conflicting statements.

1.We believe the King James Bible is authoritative because it is a faithful and accurate transmission of the Providentially Preserved Masoretic (OT) and Byzantine (NT) (TR) texts, and is therefore the verbal and formal equivalent of the Inspired Words which God has preserved for us, intact, for use in this day
<http://members.tripod.com/~ThomasCassidy/doctrine.html>

2."The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon," by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, Presented at the
Dean Burgon Society Annual Meeting, Grayling, Michigan, July 1998.

3. We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611"). <http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/statement.htm>

 

[Ziggy]

DocC: Each of the variant readings would have to be examined individually on a case-by-case basis, and an informed decision made

Let me take one case, Doc, as an example of where the TR/KJV and the Byzantine text differ: Mt 10:8, where the phrase NEKROUS EGEIRETE ("raise the dead") appears in both the TR (Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, Scrivener) and KJV but not in the Byzantine or majority text.

Even Burgon himself admitted that this phrase formed no part of the sacred text ("When our Lord first sent forth His Twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to _raise the dead_ (NEKROUS EGEIRETE, S. Matthew x. 8). This is easily [!] demonstrable" [Revision Revised, p. 108; reprint by Waite's Dean Burgon Society]).

So, in that particular case, do you consider that phrase original since it appears in the TR/KJV, or do you agree with Burgon and the Byzantine or majority text defenders?

Certainly the Dean Burgon Society would not accept Burgon on this or many other points, despite their praise for him as a supposed KJV defender, even when he clearly was not 100% so; but then, they would never have let him join their organization, nor would he have chosen to do so, given their statement of faith.

 

[TCassidy]

But then, Doc, how does your above statement square with your church's doctrinal statement (1) as well as with your own (apparent?) 1998 membership in Waite's Dean Burgon Society (2), which organization *mandates* as a doctrinal position the Scrivener TR alone as the only Greek text that can be considered closest to the originals (3)?

I am still a member of the DBS, and was, until two years ago, a member of the Executive Committee. I tried valiantly to inject some sanity into the Society, but when I realized I was wasting my time I resigned my position on the Executive Committee.

As to my church's doctrinal statement, we believe in the providential (not perfect) preservation of the Byzantine textform. We included (TR) in case anyone was unsure what we meant by "Byzantine" text. The TR (collectively) is a text representative of the Byzantine textform.

"The Textual Position of Dean John William Burgon," by Dr. Thomas Cassidy, Presented at the Dean Burgon Society Annual Meeting, Grayling, Michigan, July 1998.

Burgon had many misgivings regarding the common TRs of his day, and I believe he would applaud the work of Scrivener and consider his work to be an excellent example of (lower) textual criticism improving the printed editions of the TR.

We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611").

One of the reasons I resigned from the Executive Committee was that I don't let anyone do my thinking for me.

 

[TCassidy]

So, in that particular case, do you consider that phrase original since it appears in the TR/KJV, or do you agree with Burgon and the Byzantine or majority text defenders?

The reading is not supported by any Greek manuscript that I am aware of, nor is it found in the most ancient vernaculars, the Old Latin and the Old Peshitta. When reading the parallel passages in Mark and Luke the phrase is conspicuous by its absence. I am not convinced of its authenticity.

 

[Ziggy]

Thank you much for your clarification, Doc. Very helpful for understanding your position.

DocC: The reading [in Mt 10:8] is not supported by any Greek manuscript that I am aware of, nor is it found in the most ancient vernaculars, the Old Latin and the Old Peshitta.

As for Mt 10:8, "raise the dead" actually is found in Aleph B C* N 0281vid f1 f13 33 565 700mg 892 L-2211 al, according to Nestle-Aland 27th edition apparatus, and (according to the same) also appears in a transposed order in MSS P W Delta pc sy-h as well as in MS 348 and some small number of other MSS. Nevertheless, Burgon still maintained its non-originality, particularly since the vast quantity of remaining Greek MSS lacked the phrase.

 

[bruren777]

Originally posted by SaggyWoman:
Now, another church has put up a sign which reflects the message "If it isn't KJV, then flush it." What do you think?