Did the KJV Need Updating?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Kelissa brings up an interesting point about newer versions being different from the KJV. But the KJV was markedly different from previous versions also. So can't the same charge be made against the KJV that people now make against the MVs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, Tom, the KJV was remarkably similar to earlier English bibles. It contains almost 85% of the readings of Tyndale.

 

Thomas wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, Tom, the KJV was remarkably similar to earlier English bibles. It contains almost 85% of the readings of Tyndale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ONLY 85%? GASP
I have an article that may disagree with that. When I get back to the office I'll post the link.

 

Thomas Cassidy,

Thank you for shedding new light on the subject. It is hard to know what is truth. I am sure my approach to the KJV is not as well studied as others (by any stretch).

 

Kellisa,

If you are looking for comfort in retaining your beliefs and not having them questioned, then this is the place to be. If you want to be completely honest with yourself and Scripture, then questioning is the best route. There will always be someone around to tell you what you want to hear.

Daniel

 

Thomas said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The above is a mis-representation of the facts. The MSS used by Erasmus to compile his Greek NT reflect the readings of the vast majority of the extant Greek MSS. Some of these readings can be shown to be vastly older than the so-called "oldest and best" MSS of the Alexandrian textform. Erasmus also had at his disposal MSS which followed the Alexandrian textform, and rejected their readings as unreliable. Frederic Kenyon, writing in his book "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" says, on page 133, "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Vaticanus], as proof of its superiority to the received Greek text." Erasmus compared the "superior" reading of Vaticanus to the readings of the Byzantine textform and reject the Vaticanus readings as unreliable. His edition of 1535 did not contain these readings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

You keep making two points that I have earlier refuted, the Byzantine readings supposedly older than the Alexandrians is based on the 150 readings that Sturz discovered. Dan Wallace has checked these and found that not all 150 were distinctively Byzantine, and almost all were not genetically significant. The data does nothing to point to the early existence of the Byzantine text type as a whole. I have articulated this carefully on the other thread: Is the Byzantine Text Form Inferior?

Regarding Erasmus and your quote from Kenyon. I refuted this back on the old board before the meltdown. I will have to do it again here. You could not have mis-used the Kenyon quote more! I checked the page you referenced, as I did before, and there is no context after the the quote that gives any indication as to the response of Erasmus to the information received about Vaticanus. All that you said above after the quote is your own supposition. Not fact. Why would Erasmus had been interested in Vaticanus to send a messenger for it, only to dismiss it as unreliable? There is no indication that he even interacted with what was sent him. A much more plausible explanation is that Erasmus didn't wish to be bothered that late in career. Consider the year Erasmus received word from his associate: 1533. Erasmus had already produced his 1st edition (1516), his 2nd edition (1519, about 400 changes from the 1st), his 3rd edition (1522, 118 changes from the 2nd), his 4th edition (1527, about 90 improvements from the Complutensian Polyglot). 1533 was only two years prior to 1535 when he produced his 5th edition, which differed little from the fourth. That fact testifies that Erasmus at this point in his career was more interested in the publisher getting out another printing, than going back and doing a major re-working of the text. He was a great scholar with wide interests, and had other fish to fry. Furthermore, 1535 was his last edition. Others would carry on the work.

The fact that Erasmus did not include readings received from Vaticanus in 1533 is no real surprise when you place it in context. To claim that Erasmus rejected the readings as unreliable is simply putting words into Erasmus' mouth. Your supposition is just no more plausible than the supposition that if Erasmus had found Vaticanus in Basil in 1516 when printing his first edition, that he would have likely just given it to the printer and said "print this"!

Chick

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

Daniel

I do want to be completly honest with myself and I think that if I am, I don't need to question the authority of the KJV translation. I by faith believe this to be the only translation acceptable. It really doesn't matter what I want to hear but what God wants me to hear. I just have one question for you. How do you ground yourself in the Word of God if you cannot even accept the Word as it is but accept many different translations that say different things? I know we disagree on many issues from past experiences, but it seems that in all the cases you cannot accept "thus saith the Lord". You always have an explaination to refute the Word of God and what it means, whether it be translation, interpretation...whatever. I guess what I am trying to say is what do you base your beliefs on, what is your anchor?

 

Kelissa,

My anchor is Jesus Christ. He is the criterion by which I interpret Scripture. He is Lord over Scripture. We have no authority but the living Christ within us. You say that I refute the word of God, but I do not. I interpret the word of God based on the living Christ. You may ask how I can know Christ apart from Scripture. The answer is two-fold: (1) I know him because I have a relationship with him; (2) I know who he was because of certain texts in the NT. It is the task of solid textual criticism to find what portions of the NT references to Christ are or are not accurate. This makes a lot of people who need some kind of sure, written foundation uncomfortable. A Christian, though, needs no other foundation than Christ.

Daniel Payne

P.S. Look at my post, "10 Questions for KJVers"

 

Daniel,

How do you know those "certain texts" in the NT are reliable and accurate?

Furthermore, what if I say that the Christ living in me leads me to do something that the Christ living in you tells you is wrong?

Your neo-orthodoxy is man-centered, subjective, and runs contrary to Scripture.

Chick

 

I know who he was because of certain texts in the NT. It is the task of solid textual criticism to find what portions of the NT references to Christ are or are not accurate. This makes a lot of people who need some kind of sure, written foundation uncomfortable. A Christian, though, needs no other foundation than Christ.

Daniel Payne

I'm sure like most everything else we will just disagree on this one. I don't try to determine which scriptures are accurate. I accept every word as accurate as the Bible tells me to. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I know you don't accept this so it really doesn't make any diffence, but I cannot learn about Christ, God or any spiritual thing apart from God's Word. Sorry we just disagree. And yes I do have to have a sure thing and that is the Word of God. Is Jesus not referred to as the Word.

 

"Your neo-orthodoxy is man-centered, subjective, and runs contrary to Scripture."

Exactly what I was thinking. Reading God's Word and accepting it helps me to keep from being wise in my own conceits.

 

"Your neo-orthodoxy is man-centered, subjective, and runs contrary to Scripture."

Exactly what I was thinking. Reading God's Word and accepting it helps me to keep from being wise in my own conceits.

 

Kellisa,

Jesus is a capital "W." I respect your opinions, but they seem to be awfully close to biblioatry.

 

You are free to call it whatever you want.

 

Chick, you keep beating the same dead horse! I have already shown you that Erasmus has access to an Alexandrian text, and he rejected it as inferior. When he got the readings from Rome, it is obvious they read the same as the text he had already looked at, as was so underwhelmed by them he did not include them in his edition of 1535. You can sputter and mutter all you please, but it will not change the facts of history. Erasmus had access to an Alexandrian text of the NT as well as select readings from Vaticanus and did not include such in his last edition.

 

Kellisa, don't be upset over paynedaniel's misrepresentation of your position. His Modernist/Neo-Orthodox position demands that anyone who has a higher regard for God's word than he does must be an idolator. If not, his lack of respect for the word of God would be exposed.

 

You are the one sputtering and muttering without any evidence. You are the one trying to re-write history and put words into Erasmus' mouth. What we do know is that he didn't make changes from any sources for the 1535 edition. He just wanted a re-print. It doesn't mean that he was underwhelmed by further evidence. Prove to me that there is evidence as to Erasmus' view of the quality of Vaticanus. No such documentation exists. Quit beating your dead horse on this one. Until we discover written documentation as to what Erasmus thought of Vaticanus, we cannot be certain what he thought of it.

Chick

 

Daniel,
Would you mind posting exactly what it is about Kelisa's post that leads you to think she's guilty of "Biblioaltry"? Many liberals throw this ad-hominem gibberish around without merit.

 

Sure. I believe those who equate the Word (i.e. Jesus) and the word (i.e. the written word) are bibliolators. It would certainly be unfair for me to state that those who hold to innerancy are bibliolators, since I know many innerantists (my wife being one) who are not bibliolators. Equating the Word with the word is very different than saying the Bible is innerant (I believe neither).

Daniel

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: paynedaniel ]

 

I think it is just that I accept the Bible as my final authority. By that I mean I accept Jesus authority, but I only learn about him by what he reveals throught the Holy Spirit when I read the Word of God.

 

Daniel,
That all being said, I don't see how in the world you can accuse Kelissa of being guilty of Bibliolatry. To accept the Bible as an inspired, inerrant authority is not deifying it at all. It just puts you squarely in the rank and file of sound, orthodox Christianity.