Fundamental View of the Bible

[Yeshua1]

Actually, words can only be archaic in their own language, i.e. koine Greek to modern Greek. So no, words in the TR are not archaic. They are completely consistent with 1st century AD Greek documents, just as are any Alexandrian manuscripts. But I realize you were just feeding off Van's ignorance. (And he insinuated I was ignorant early in this thread. :tongue3

However, "archaic Form or use of a form which is obsolete or belongs recognizbly to an older stage of a language: e.g. the syntax of
God Save the Queen! or the use of words like hereafter in legal documents" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, ed. by P. H. Matthews, p. 25).

And I strongly disagree that the Critical Text is "much better" than the TR. Are you familiar at all with Ernst Colwell's or Maurice Robinson's work? Mainline textual critics are starting to agree with these men that the "shorter is better" canon must go. In which case the whole critical text, eclectic method is up in the air, and the Byzantine text type is closer to the originals than the Alexandrian or Western text types on which the eclectics base the UBS/Nestle-Aland texts.

here we go again!

isn't it though the truth that one can have confidence in whichever greek text used today, wether CT/MT/TR etc, that we have the word of God to us for today? Though one might hold CT to be closer to the originals, regardless which Greek text, we have an accurate Bible version?

And isn't this entire area really one in which we tread lightly, as really only scholars in this area can decide which text best, which versions better etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

Please "describe" verbal plenary inspiration using words commonly used and understood today. For example in the doctrinal statement, We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, explain why something like We believe the Holy Spirit guided those who dictated or wrote the scriptures such that each of the words used was chosen by God. And we also believe the message presented with those words was complete such that the inspired scripture alone is our only basis for faith and practice.

Applies ONLY to the originals though, as NO version is inspired by God in sense those were!

 

[jbh28]

Next, those that agree with me, that the NKJV is superior to the KJV because it is more understandable to modern audiences, seem to think this argues in favor of the TR. Nonsense.

The NKJV was translated from the TR.

 

[John of Japan]

here we go again!

isn't it though the truth that one can have confidence in whichever greek text used today, wether CT/MT/TR etc, that we have the word of God to us for today? Though one might hold CT to be closer to the originals, regardless which Greek text, we have an accurate Bible version?

In Japan we use the Shinkaiyaku, based on the NASB. We have no choice since there has only been one TR/Byzantine based translation in Japanese history, and it was in Classical Japanese and is out of print. But yes, it is a pretty accurate translation and I can teach all the doctrine I need to out of the Shinkaiyaku.

And isn't this entire area really one in which we tread lightly, as really only scholars in this area can decide which text best, which versions better etc!

Well yes. But if folk like jbh28 and Van want to make categorical statements that the critical texts are better and the Byzantine is corrupt, they should be able to argue intelligently about textual criticism and back up their statements. So I'll be waiting (but not breathlessly).

 

[Van]

Pitchback

The NKJV was translated from the TR.

Since both are TR based, the preference for the NKJV is based on eliminating the archaic words used to translate the TR in the KJV. This is not rocket science.

Thus the preference for the NKJV agrees with the view that archaic words should be eliminated!

However, the NKJV still uses "only begotten" to translate monogenes, and therefore seems unable to eliminate some archaic words, whereas the NET or HCSB are able. Again this demonstrates lip service to scripture alone and shows a willingness to put forth the traditional, yet know to be mistaken, view of men.

 

[jbh28]

Well yes. But if folk like jbh28 and Van want to make categorical statements that the critical texts are better and the Byzantine is corrupt, they should be able to argue intelligently about textual criticism and back up their statements. So I'll be waiting (but not breathlessly).

John, I didn't say that the Byzantine texts are corrupt. First, the "critical text" would be an eclectic text. The Byzantine would be a group of manuscripts. I wouldn't say that the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt. The critical texts(like UBS4 and NA27) use the Byzantine manuscripts along with others.

Please don't lump me in the same sentence as Van. I simply stated that I believed "that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR." I'm entitled to my opinion. If you believe the TR is better, ok. I have no problem with that. I wasn't here to argue about textual criticism. I was only making a correction. Please don't change what I said nor imply that I'm not willing to argue intelligently about textual criticism. I'm assuming you probably meant it more to van, so don't include my name with his.

 

[jbh28]

Since both are TR based, the preference for the NKJV is based on eliminating the archaic words used to translate the TR in the KJV. This is not rocket science.

Thus the preference for the NKJV agrees with the view that archaic words should be eliminated!

However, the NKJV still uses "only begotten" to translate monogenes, and therefore seems unable to eliminate some archaic words, whereas the NET or HCSB are able. Again this demonstrates lip service to scripture alone and shows a willingness to put forth the traditional, yet know to be mistaken, view of men.

Some still believe that "only begotten" is the better translation of monogenes. There's debate over that. The NASB also has "only begotten." It's not a matter here over "archaic" but a matter over correct understanding of what the term monogenes means.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I didn't say that the Byzantine texts are corrupt. First, the "critical text" would be an eclectic text. The Byzantine would be a group of manuscripts. I wouldn't say that the Byzantine manuscripts are corrupt. The critical texts(like UBS4 and NA27) use the Byzantine manuscripts along with others.

Thanks for clarifying.

But, the critical texts basically ignore the Byzantine mss. Check out Metzger's writings. I don't have time right now to give you a quote, but quite often in his works (The Text of the New Testament, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, etc.) he commonly denigrates the Byzantine. It is a fundamental part of his method that the Byzantine is to be ignored. So UBS and NA will occasionally include a Western reading, but otherwise will be almost exclusively Alexandrian. So the modern critical texts (though they claim to be eclectic) are still basically Westcott and Hort. Even some eclectics object to them on those grounds. (See the recent Rethinking New Textament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black.)

Please don't lump me in the same sentence as Van. I simply stated that I believed "that the UBS4 and NA27 are much better texts than the TR." I'm entitled to my opinion. If you believe the TR is better, ok. I have no problem with that. I wasn't here to are about textual criticism. I was only making a correction. Please don't change what I said nor imply that I'm not willing to argue intelligently about textual criticism. I'm assuming you probably meant it more to van, so don't include my name with his.

I understand. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the confusion.

 

[Van]

JOJ is becoming an embarrassment to this thread. First he says I said he was ignorant. I called him on it and asked for a quote. He provided none. Then he revised his statement to say I implied he was ignorant. But again did not provide a quote. Now he could say with integrety that he had inferred I thought he was ignorant, but when I directly replied that was not true, he lost all basis for his slanderous repetitive remarks calculated to disparge me.

Next he says I said the Byzantine is corrupt, but again no quote will be forthcoming because he simply makes stuff up to disparage others.
I did address the TR and it having corruptions but even that does not equate with saying the TR is corrupt, which suggests it would not be sufficient for God's purpose. And that of course would be silly, since I came to Christ based on the KJV translation of the TR.

 

[John of Japan]

Just for the record, here is Van subtly accusing me of ignorance. I had already quoted this, but Van simply ignored my previous quote and statement and continues to obfuscate. (And of course he didn't deny calling Don and me "know-it-alls." Name calling.... )

Hi John of Japan, you will pardon me if I doubt you will discuss the topic, we are on page three and you are still posting diversions. While you are googling to find the source of my last statement of faith concerning scripture, you might what to do some research on "common usage." Otherwise, one might conclude you make charges from ignorance.

http://www.fbfi.org/constitution-aboutus-84 Article III, section 1.

And this thread is so far from the (very flawed) OP, that for him to accuse me of derailing it is ridiculous.

Now here is Van's precise statement about corruptions in the TR:

I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer the TR to the Critical Text, unless they are trying to justify sticking with archaic words, corruptions and additions.

It's all pretty clear to me, no matter how Van wriggles and backtracks.

 

[jbh28]

Thanks for clarifying.

But, the critical texts basically ignore the Byzantine mss. Check out Metzger's writings. I don't have time right now to give you a quote, but quite often in his works (The Text of the New Testament, A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, etc.) he commonly denigrates the Byzantine. It is a fundamental part of his method that the Byzantine is to be ignored. So UBS and NA will occasionally include a Western reading, but otherwise will be almost exclusively Alexandrian. So the modern critical texts (though they claim to be eclectic) are still basically Westcott and Hort. Even some eclectics object to them on those grounds. (See the recent Rethinking New Textament Textual Criticism, ed. by David Alan Black.)

I understand. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the confusion.

No problem

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Coming back to the O.P., I wonder if anyone has read the excellent Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist Catechism by Benjamin Beddome?

Beddome was a Baptist minister in England during the 18th Century and was much used by God. I think what follows is an excellent testimony to to word of God.

Question 4. What is the word of God?
Ans. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God and the only certain rule of faith and obedience.

Are the O.T. and N.T. Scriptures the word of God? Yes. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim 3:16. Might not this revelation be imposed on us by evil spirits? No. For if Satan be divided against himeself how shall his kingdom stand? Matt 12:26. Might it not be intruded on us by wicked and designing men? No. Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles? Matt 7:16. Might it not be the work of pious craft in men? No. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, Rom 9:1.

Were holy men then moved to speak what they did? Yes. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet 1:21. Were they moved to write what they spoke? Yes. The Lord said, "Write the vision and make it plain upon tables, Hab 2:2. Does God own what men have thus written as His? Yes. I have written to him the great things of My law, Hosea 8:12. Were the writings of the O.T. inspired? Yes. For the prophecy came not of old time by the will of man, 2 Pet 1:21. And may the same be affirmed of those of the New? Yes. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God sent by His angel to His servant John, Rev 1:1.

Were the penmen of the sacred Sriptures satisfied of their own inspiration? Yes. The God of Israel said; the Rock of Israel spoke to me, 2 Sam 23:3. But might they not be deceived? No. We have not followed cunningly devised fables, 2 Pet 1:16. Did they write what they knew? Yes. That which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, 1 John 1:3. And what others who were their contemporaries knew? Yes. For this thing was not done in a corner, Acts 26:36. Did they take any undue methods to gain credit? No.My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, 1 Cor 2:4. Had they no secular aims? No. For wherefore we both labour and suffer reproach, 1 Tim 4:10.

Is the word of God a rule? Yes. It is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, Psalm 119:105. Do we need such a rule? Yes. For we all like sheep have gone astray, Isa 53:6. Is the word of God a sufficient rule? Yes. The law of the LORD is perfect, Psalm 19:7. Is it a plain rule? Yes. The words of His mouth are all plain to him that understandeth, Prov 8:8-9. Is it an extensive rule? Yes. The commandment is exceedingly broad, Psalm 119:96. Is it an abiding rule? Yes. the word of the LORD endureth forever, 1 Pet 1:23. And is it the only rule? Yes. For if any man shall add to these things, God will add to him the plagues written in this book, Rev 22:18.

Are not unwritten traditions a rule? No. Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your traditions, Matt 15:6. Is the authority of the church a rule? No. For our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, 1 Cor 2:5. Are the sentiments of great men a rule? No. The prophet and the priest have erred, Isa 28:7. Is the light of nature a sufficient rule? No. For it is said of those that were guided by it, The way of peace they have not known, Rom 3:17. Is the light within a certain rule? No. The way of a man is not in himself, Jer 10:23. Are not the examples of many a rule? No. Thou shalt not follow a crowd to do evil. Are not the examples of the good a sufficient rule? No. We must be followers of [them] only as [they] are of Christ, 1 Cor 11:1. May not what angels say be depended on as a certain rule? No. Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you, let him be accursed, Gal 1:8. Or a voice from heaven? No. For we have a more certain word of prophecy, 2 Pet 1:19.


Beddome's book is published by Solid Ground Christian Books, ISBN 1-59925-052-7.

Steve

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Just for the record, here is Van subtly accusing me of ignorance. I had already quoted this, but Van simply ignored my previous quote and statement and continues to obfuscate. (And of course he didn't deny calling Don and me "know-it-alls." Name calling.... )

Lets keep those eyes rolling, JOJ charged me with violating BB rules, plagiarism, because I did not provide the source for my OP quote. However, "fair usage" does not require any such thing, just that my commentary on the statement demonstrate that the copied information was not my own. Since he apparently does not understand this, or he would not have accused me of violation, I said his charge appeared to be an argument from ignorance. Then JOJ charges me with insinuating he is ignorant on the topic at hand. This deflection, calculated to misrepresent me, is just the sort of openly dismissive behavior of know it alls. JOJ continues to post like a know it all, dismissive of the views of others, such as making a false charge against Jbh28 and Van about our saying the Byzantine text is corrupt, when what I said was the TR text has corruptions.

And this thread is so far from the (very flawed) OP, that for him to accuse me of derailing it is ridiculous.

Here he goes again saying the OP is very flawed, dismissing it out of hand, rather than says which points are valid and which need to be revised because of this that or the other.

Folks it is important that those who translate the written word first read it, understand it, and accurately represent it.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic after addressing yet another attempt to derail it, lets discuss this view posted above:

Are the O.T. and N.T. Scriptures the word of God? Yes. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim 3:16. Might not this revelation be imposed on us by evil spirits? No. For if Satan be divided against himself how shall his kingdom stand? Matt 12:26. Might it not be intruded on us by wicked and designing men? No. Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles? Matt 7:16. Might it not be the work of pious craft in men? No. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, Rom 9:1.

The first statement makes an assumption as to what represents the Old Testament and the New Testament. The critical text Old and New Testament are the Word of God clearly claims the existent original language copies are in view, rather than someone's favorite translation.

Might not the critical text be a Satanic corruption? The argument that Satan would not mix truth with lies to mislead is silly, of course he would. But we do have 2 Peter which says the scriptures available in the first century were still holy commands.

And the second defense is equally flawed in my opinion, yes the scriptures can be corrupted, Jesus taught that the traditions of men make the Word of God to no effect. We can rely on those scriptures we have identified as being the word of God because we trust the divine providence that guided those who put together our Bible. Were these scriptures accepted by the original audience? Do they impact and change lives? And so forth.

But he hit the nail on the head when he said the scriptures were not crafted by men, but were inspired by God. Lots of Bible support for that assertion. And nothing else flawed jumped out at me in the remaining questions or rebuttals. Thanks Martin, good post.

 

[John of Japan]

Lets keep those eyes rolling, JOJ charged me with violating BB rules, plagiarism, because I did not provide the source for my OP quote. However, "fair usage" does not require any such thing, just that my commentary on the statement demonstrate that the copied information was not my own. Since he apparently does not understand this, or he would not have accused me of violation, I said his charge appeared to be an argument from ignorance.

Folks, do NOT trust Van's opinion on "fair use." As a former editor/proof reader and a published author who has read up on the subject, I know that this copyright concept does NOT mean you can quote without giving the source. It means that if you are commenting, researching or otherwise examining a work, you are allowed to quote lengthy passages for that purpose without being in violation of copyright law. See what the US gov. says at: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

If you follow Van's example and quote extensively without sourcing, you are in violation of copyright law. This is what Van did in the OP. After I rebuked him for this, he then found and gave the source. And the source was not at all from a fundamental ministry. So again, his OP was "very flawed" because of these two reasons, and I stand by that.

 

[Van]

Oops, double post.

 

[Van]

Total fiction from JOJ, look at the OP, one short paragraph, less than 10% of the whole post. But JOJ, who said I said the byzantine text was corrupt when I said the TR text had corruptions, now says I quoted "extensively." And note no mention of the charge of Plagiarism, taking credit for another's work, which I did not do. Next, does the OP claim the doctrine comes from "a fundamental ministry." Nope, a fundamental doctrine. So the two reasons given by JOJ for saying the OP was "very flawed" plus the other charge he made are completely bogus. A know it all dismissing the comments, suggestions and ideas of another. Look up know it all and see if you find JOJ picture.

I did make a mistake, which was pointed out to me by JOJ, and I acknowledged the error. Some asked where I got the quote, and I said from a fundamental (IBF) church and that was not true. But when several fundamental ministry statements of faith said mostly the same things, and I posted an IBFI statement, which I then commented on as having the same lack of clarity and unsound logic, JOJ ignored my correction and did not add anything other than more falsehoods.

But JOJ continued his "fault finding" posts, saying the statement reads "little like any of the 100s of IFB statements on the Bible that he had read. However at least one that was linked to did not say verbal-plenary." But I agreed the vast majority did, and I addressed those buss words which no one posting seemed to understand.

Then, the fellow who falsely accused me of insinuating he was ignorant on the topic, said, "the statement is ignorant of what it is saying." Again, finding fault with the explanation provided but overlooking the absence or any adequate explanation of verbal plenary in many IFB statements.

The behavior is like a someone protecting "his" turf, rather than a minister trying to build up one another.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic once again:

That every word of the original autographs, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments with no Apocrypha, was given to the prophets and apostles by inspiration of the Holy Ghost in such a manner that every word might be said to come from the mouth of God. At the same time, God's choice of words reflected the personalities of the prophets and apostles in literary style, vocabulary, et cetera.

Here is the statement of faith from one of the linked IFB churches that then goes off the track by proclaim the KJV is superior of the original language text.

On the other hand it does make an effort to present the concept of "verbally inspired" with clarity, and if you look back at the OP, it tries to make a similar statement concerning the words being inspired, i.e. "the perfect words of God."

 

[HankD]

I'm back and though I disagree with JoJ concerning the "better" text (W&H vs Scrivener) I would trust his scholarship and translation work above many/most here at the BB.

Van: One needs to define from scripturecontext the meaning of the "traditions of men" which also needs to be considered in the light of

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.​

This is another "sore" subject for Baptists - What is the church in organizational terms?​

Local only? or Local and Universal? How does 1 Timothy 3:15 apply in either case?​

Where is this "church" in the 21st century?​

Unlike the Church of Rome we have no Magisterium - each of us (in a way, including yourself) "doing what is right in our own eyes".​

And, whether you can admit to it or not, you are also a tradionalist in your own right Which is in reality not a criticism but a fact (after all you are a Baptist, which has it's own body of tradition complete with variants).​

HankD​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Returning to topic after addressing yet another attempt to derail it, lets discuss this view posted above:

Are the O.T. and N.T. Scriptures the word of God? Yes. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim 3:16. Might not this revelation be imposed on us by evil spirits? No. For if Satan be divided against himself how shall his kingdom stand? Matt 12:26. Might it not be intruded on us by wicked and designing men? No. Do men gather grapes off thorns, or figs off thistles? Matt 7:16. Might it not be the work of pious craft in men? No. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, Rom 9:1.

The first statement makes an assumption as to what represents the Old Testament and the New Testament. The critical text Old and New Testament are the Word of God clearly claims the existent original language copies are in view, rather than someone's favorite translation.

The reason that I posted the extract from Beddome's book was to show
1. That long before modern-day 'Fundamentalism' the particular Baptists believed unreservedly that the Bible was the very word of God.
2. That the Bible is its own evidence for its Divine inspiration. I am not sure that throwing words like infallibility, inerrance and plenary are either necessary or helpful.
3. That the old confessions and catechisms were founded upon the Scripture and not on the opinions of men.

As soon as you push the critical text into view you are causing division. I do not accept that the C.T. is the most accurate text. I realize that I am in a minority, but like JoJ I believe that the view of many textual crirics is changing in favour of the Traditional Text.

Might not the critical text be a Satanic corruption? The argument that Satan would not mix truth with lies to mislead is silly, of course he would. But we do have 2 Peter which says the scriptures available in the first century were still holy commands.

Beddome is using Matt12:26 in just the same way that the Lord Jesus did. Satan would not be supplying a text that has brought milions to the Lord.

And the second defense is equally flawed in my opinion, yes the scriptures can be corrupted, Jesus taught that the traditions of men make the Word of God to no effect. We can rely on those scriptures we have identified as being the word of God because we trust the divine providence that guided those who put together our Bible. Were these scriptures accepted by the original audience? Do they impact and change lives? And so forth.

Matt 7:16 is making the same point- that good is not going to come from a polluted source. Sinful men could not compose a text that converts people to Christ.

But he hit the nail on the head when he said the scriptures were not crafted by men, but were inspired by God. Lots of Bible support for that assertion. And nothing else flawed jumped out at me in the remaining questions or rebuttals. Thanks Martin, good post.

Thank you.

Steve