I Dont Understand

Pride?

 

I hope you are not referring to me. I stand for my beliefs but I also give latitude to those who disagree. I do not appreciate the lack of manners either. I do not sling insults. I will not allow defenders of modern versions get under my skin. You all think that I am "misguided" or "deceived" but at least I am solid as a rock.

What I don't understand is the overbearing and condemning attitude many of you have demonstrated in your defense of modern versions. You have developed such a loyalty towards modern versions that you can't see that the changes in wording also changes their doctrinal teachings. Thus you justify your loyalty by spreading the lie that there are no doctrinal changes in modern versions.

Added this Footnote on 2/9: For those of you who want me to show examples of doctrinal changes in modern versions, please refer to the following links:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/doctrine.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm
http://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

[ February 09, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

I agree with you, Terry. I love the KJV and have recently gone back to it as my primary translation, but the KJVO crowd does far more harm to the KJV and turns many people off to it. I have no problem with those who use it as their only translation, but please stop trying to force others to.

Neal

 

I have to agree that this is definatley the case in here.

 

Is this really what you meant to write? I feel as though I am pointing at the obvious here, but don't you see the dangerous logic in that statement?
Solid as a rock according to what standard, yours? Surely you don't mean the bible (whatever version) because the defense of the KJV only position is not in there.

 

Although I was reared on the KJV, I rarely use it,
preferring some other translations. But I have no
disdain for the KJV; what bothers me is the
attitude of some who will claim that the KJV is the
only Bible and all others are of the devil. More
benignly, there are those who claim that all those
who use anything other than the KJV are merely
foolish and immature as believers. These are
what bother me--not the KJV itself.

As has already been said, it is the attitude of the
people, not the Bible translation, that is
problematic.

 

I agree with Abiyah about the KJV, and agree that the people that do the KJV the worst are the KJVO crowd.

However, there are many that hold the translation above the message, and that hold the message above the author.

I have started to believe that whenever we appear to hold "Bible knowledge" above "God knowledge" that we violate the 2nd commandment.

The Bible is the most important book ever written, and I prefer to worship the "Living Word" over the "Written Word". I though the "Written Word" is a tool to help us to get to know the Author.

"Jesus is not your Savior if He is not also your Lord."

http://www.achievebalance.com

 

Is this a part of the kindler gentler Pioneer that gives latitude to those who disagree and does not sling insults?? Accusing us of spreading a lie is definite incompatible with your first paragraph. IT is disappointing to see you "refuse" to engage in mudslinging while doing that very thing.

Equally disappointing is to see you continue to assert something that is not true. You have yet to show one doctrinal change between the KJV and the MVs. Out of all the attempts that have been made, every single one has fallen flat.

My loyalty is not to modern versions; my loyalty is to the clear truth of God's word and that is why I believe what I do and I preach it with authority.

 

The sad thing about this is that there are good arguments for the Byzantine Texts. I personaly use the NKJV because I am not conviniced by the arguments for the Alexandrian texts. I remain in the middle.

To declare inerrancy for any translation is not honoring the Word of God but is idolatry. The KJV is a great and accurate translation but it is not the only translation and very frankly I think it is inferior to the NKJV in accuracy and clarity. The KJVO crowd by following the arguments of Ruckman and Chick hurt their own credibilty. They would do better to follow Byzantine Text advocates such as Pickering and Morris.

 

While I am not a KJV Only propagator I am nevertheless pro Textus Receptus. It is possible to have that position. I have found one clear instance in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text which to me speaks of the fact that the TR is the superior text to this day. Below is an excerpt from something I wrote to a person regarding these things:


But the most serious error of the MT that comes to mind was in Rev. 21:6. Are you ready?
The MT (Hodges-Farstad) reads:

Kai eipe moi gegona to Alpha kai to O ...

Literally translated: "And He said to me: "I have become the Alpha and the Omega..."

The TR of Stephanus reads:

Kai eipen moi gegonen egô eimi to A kai to O...

Literally translated: "And He said to me: "It has become, I Am the Alpha and the Omega..."

I can think of no passage of the NT which would support the MT reading. Christ is eternally the Alpha and Omega, He never "became" the same. The MT reading is blasphemous in my opinion. The TR reading on the other hand speaks powerfully to Christ's eternal Divinity. Even the critical text is here more correct than the MT. Moorman lists much textual support for the TR reading. It is obvious to me God the Lord did not commission Hodges and Farstad to come up with a "better" Greek text than the TR. They failed.

End of quote.

Harald

 

For Heavens sake Pioneer!!!

For the billionth time, please list the doctrines that MV's change. This accusation has been made over and over but never substantiated by any of you.

Until you do prove this accusation, your accusation that we spread a lie is a false one and should be followed by an apology.

 

So what you are saying is it is perfectly OK to remove what you don't like,can't understand or falls under Hebrews 4:12??? right??
Again I ask these questions:
1.Do you know where I can get A(one,1,thats, O-N-E)copy of a Infallible,Inerrant Bible??
2.Can I get a copy in English???

 

No ... no one is saying that. You have asked that before and we answered the same way. No one is removing things that they don't like. That is not the issue. Raise the level of conversation by asking legitimate questions.

Most book stores will sell you one couple of an infallible inerrant Bible and most of them will sell it to you in English. You can get it in several different translations, all of which are inerrant and inspired becuase they are faithful translations of Scripture. You can also order it from a number of places online. If you need some help finding a place, let me know. I know of several I can direct you to.

 

The Robinson Pierpoint MT is apparently not the same. I don't have the HF here to look at and compare. The TR reads much like the eclectic text.

I think you have over simplified the issue here greatly. YOU cannot look at one reading you disagree with and condemn a whole text. While this may be a valid point of dispute and difference, it is hardly rising to the level of blasphemy.

The Lord doesn't commission people to come up with better texts. That was an unfortunate straw man argument included in your post. The world of textual criticism is an effort to determine the best readings out of the thousands that are available. Erasmus did it with the TR and failed notably in many places. RB and HF did it differently, both with the majority text position. UBS and NA did it differently with an eclectic position. In the end, God has not revealed to us the best position and cases can be made for both the majority and the eclectic. (It is extremely difficult to make a reasonable case for the TR.)

I say that say that we need to exercise some restraint in the rhetoric we use about those who disagree with us at this level.

 

Larry, I cannot tell about the Pierpont&Robinson MT. It would be interesting to see what it says in this verse.

From whence did you gather that I condemn the whole text? The onus of my sayings was that I consider the TR superior. I would be a fool if I condemned the whole of the MT of Hodges-Farstad, seeing most of it is in line with the TR I contend for. But such readings as the one I gave as example I condemn. Even if it had been in a TR edition I would have condemned it as blasphemous.

I fail to see my rhetoric in the previous post was without restrains, if that was what you implied. I condemned a Greek reading which was manifestly not inspired of God. It was such a reading that I fear for the person who initially introduced it into the Greek text of the Revelation of John, cp. 22:17-18. Period.

As I see it the less theological or doctrinal errors a Greek text edition contains the better. If this is pragmatism on my part then let it be so. The more theological or doctrinal errors a Greek text has the worse. It does not matter if it is based on the majority of existing copies or on the "oldest and best MSS". Errors have no part in God's word.

Harald

 

What I was saying is that the RB is not the same according to what you say. I have the RB; I do not have the HF. The RB substantially agrees with the TR and the UBS/NA on this point and against what you say the HF reads.

Using the word blasphemous doesn't leave a lot of room for it to be good. It came across very strongly and IMO was a poor choice of words to describe the reading. I would be interested in seeing why HF chose that reading, assuming that you have correctly reflected here. I am not doubting you; simply hedging against misunderstanding on the part of either of us.

I think you have way overstated the case to say that it was manifestly not inspired of God and that you fear for the person who introduced it. It may well be not inspired and indeed I would lean that way. But HF may have some very good reasons. They got the reading from some manuscript that had been preserved. There may very well be an explanation that simplicity overlooks. I have not studied it. My caution about rhetoric is broadly intended. I would be cautious using "blasphemous" in teh same sentence with readings of God's word.