"Corrupt Texts"

[Rippon]

I have asked this of KJVO'ers here before , but I was met with a deafeningly silent non-reply .

So I will ask again to anyone KJO"ers and others alike -- just what do you mean by that phrase ? Do you think that all doctrines are compromised in non-KJV texts ?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I have no idea. I'll check with my Mentor: he knows everything. :flower:

 

[TCGreek]

I have asked this of KJVO'ers here before , but I was met with a deafeningly silent non-reply .

So I will ask again to anyone KJO"ers and others alike -- just what do you mean by that phrase ? Do you think that all doctrines are compromised in non-KJV texts ?

Good question, Rippon?

BTW, did you intentionally mean to give the abbreviation CT in your title Corrupt Texts? :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

I have asked this of KJVO'ers here before , but I was met with a deafeningly silent non-reply .

So I will ask again to anyone KJO"ers and others alike -- just what do you mean by that phrase ? Do you think that all doctrines are compromised in non-KJV texts ?

The term originally was used in secular textual criticism (the mss of the Greek philosophers, poets, etc.) to mean a text with copyist errors. It didn't have to be an error affecting meaning. It may have been something as simple as omitting a "the," which might not have any affect on the translation, but in the terminology of secular textual criticism this was "corruption of the text."

NT textual critics took up the term, notably Westcott and Hort, who used it over and over in their two volume edition of the Greek NT which introduced their theories to the world. When the KJVO movement arose, it adopted the term too, but only used it to describe Greek NTs or English Bibles that were not just the same as the TR-KJV tradition.

Personally I hate the term. I shudder at the very idea of calling a Bible "corrupt" even if it doesn't have some verses or words I think ought to be in there, or if it's a poor translation. You can't corrupt something that God inspired. It is eternal.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Yes, it simply means texts that are obscure because it is very difficult to decipher what the original may have been, given the number of textual variants. And sometimes even a relatively well-substantiated text requires some guesswork to help it make sense. Many Bibles will show the "corrupt text" footnote in books such as Hosea, for example.

But I agree that there must be a better term than "corrupt"! That makes it sound as though it has been deliberately tampered with.

As for the doctrine question: one of the cardinal rules I learned in seminary is that we do not make doctrine out of single texts, particularly obscure ones, whether the text is clear or not. A few so-called corrupt texts do not alter the overall conclusions of Biblical theology.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I have asked this of KJVO'ers here before , but I was met with a deafeningly silent non-reply .

Would that be the same "deafening silence" that I was met with when I asked you to produce the quote where, in your words, I "flatly stated" that the KJV is the only true Word of God?

I'm still waiting for that quote. Until you either admit that you are wrong or produce the quote, how can you be trusted with explanations to this question? I, for one, do not want to run the risk of being misquoted again.

 

[Rippon]

The term originally was used in secular textual criticism (the mss of the Greek philosophers, poets, etc.) to mean a text with copyist errors. It didn't have to be an error affecting meaning. It may have been something as simple as omitting a "the," which might not have any affect on the translation, but in the terminology of secular textual criticism this was "corruption of the text."

NT textual critics took up the term, notably Westcott and Hort, who used it over and over in their two volume edition of the Greek NT which introduced their theories to the world. When the KJVO movement arose, it adopted the term too, but only used it to describe Greek NTs or English Bibles that were not just the same as the TR-KJV tradition.

Personally I hate the term. I shudder at the very idea of calling a Bible "corrupt" even if it doesn't have some verses or words I think ought to be in there, or if it's a poor translation. You can't corrupt something that God inspired. It is eternal.

I am in complete agreement with your words here JoJ .

 

[Rippon]

Yes, it simply means texts that are obscure because it is very difficult to decipher what the original may have been, given the number of textual variants. And sometimes even a relatively well-substantiated text requires some guesswork to help it make sense. Many Bibles will show the "corrupt text" footnote in books such as Hosea, for example.

But I agree that there must be a better term than "corrupt"! That makes it sound as though it has been deliberately tampered with.

As for the doctrine question: one of the cardinal rules I learned in seminary is that we do not make doctrine out of single texts, particularly obscure ones, whether the text is clear or not. A few so-called corrupt texts do not alter the overall conclusions of Biblical theology.

I am in your AMEN corner also !

 

[Rippon]

Would that be the same "deafening silence" that I was met with when I asked you to produce the quote where, in your words, I "flatly stated" that the KJV is the only true Word of God?

I'm still waiting for that quote. Until you either admit that you are wrong or produce the quote, how can you be trusted with explanations to this question? I, for one, do not want to run the risk of being misquoted again.

Off-topic PB . I have answered that elsewhere .

 

[Deacon]

Personally I hate the term. I shudder at the very idea of calling a Bible "corrupt" even if it doesn't have some verses or words I think ought to be in there, or if it's a poor translation. You can't corrupt something that God inspired. It is eternal.

Perhaps we should follow the example of those ancients before us.
They did not use the word corrupt but rather praised the earlier versions despite their flaws of translation.

Concerning the Septuagint, they wrote:
It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded. This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current.

And yet despite its flaws, they were persuaded to call it,

“…the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house”

Regarding their new translation they wrote:

Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity, of the employment.
Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?
Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?

Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? …
Do we condemn the ancient [translations]?
In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.
As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to God’s Church, lest I should seem to have labored in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them.

Preface to the KJV

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Perhaps we should follow the example of those ancients before us.
They did not use the word corrupt but rather praised the earlier versions despite their flaws of translation.

Good quotes, Rob.

Truth never changes. A version can be poorly translated, it can be from what one considers the wrong Greek text, but if it says, "Immanuel, God with us," that particular truth remains the same.

In translating, we search for just the right word, just the right turn of phrase, just the right grammar to portray what the original does. We humans fail, but God is able to work through our weakness.

In Japanese we use the Shinkaiyaku, the best version in the language, but I sometimes grit my teeth at the bugs in the translation. However, amazingly, God still saves souls through this versions! And almost all the conservatives Christians in Japan use it (IFB, everyone).

 

[Pastor_Bob]

But I agree that there must be a better term than "corrupt"! That makes it sound as though it has been deliberately tampered with.

I do not believe that the Alexandrian Text was knowingly and willfully "corrupted." I do believe that the text was altered to reflect certain Gnostic theological views, one being the denial of the deity of Christ. In this sense, it has been corrupted, which is why I personally trust only Received Text translations.

 

[Rippon]

I do not believe that the Alexandrian Text was knowingly and willfully "corrupted." I do believe that the text was altered to reflect certain Gnostic theological views, one being the denial of the deity of Christ. In this sense, it has been corrupted, which is why I personally trust only Received Text translations.

What modern English Bible translations not based on the RT deny the Diety of Christ ?

 

[TCGreek]

Good question, Rippon.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

What modern English Bible translations not based on the RT deny the Diety of Christ ?

Where did you get the idea that I believed any modern English translation denies the deity of Christ? Again, you are guilty of taking my words and making them say what you think I believe. Is the issue here the text or the translations?

 

[Trotter]

Where does the Alexandrian text deny the deity of Christ? I have heard it accused of such, but I have yet to see or hear where it does so.

This is an honest inquiry... no agenda behind it. If it is there, I would like to see it.

 

[Rippon]

Where did you get the idea that I believed any modern English translation denies the deity of Christ? Again, you are guilty of taking my words and making them say what you think I believe. Is the issue here the text or the translations?

So no modern English Bible translation denies the Deity of Christ ? Is that your view since you charge me with distorting your stance ? You are as hard to nail down as jelly to the wall .

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Where did you get the idea that I believed any modern English translation denies the deity of Christ?

If you do not believe this, then would you please explain this statement so that those of us reading this thread will understand exactly what you meant...

I do believe that the text was altered to reflect certain Gnostic theological views, one being the denial of the deity of Christ.

 

[Rippon]

I do not believe that the Alexandrian Text was knowingly and willfully "corrupted." I do believe that the text was altered to reflect certain Gnostic theological views, one being the denial of the deity of Christ. In this sense, it has been corrupted, which is why I personally trust only Received Text translations.

Can you demonstrate any "Gnostic theological views" in any modern text ? I say this since you think that non-TR texts are 'corrupt' in that sense .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I too would like to know where these "corrupt texts" deny the deity of Christ.