KJV ONLY

[DocCas]

Originally posted by BrianT:
With the exception of the Septuagint, the rest of the items in that list came *after* Christ. But in regards to the Septuagint, Christ often quoted from it.

I beg to differ. Every copy of the LXX presently extant dates to the mid 4th century or later, the oldest being Aleph and B. The only MS of the OT in Greek which dates to or before the time of Christ is the Ryland Papyrus #458 which contains portions of 5 chapters of Deuteronomy in Greek. This MS dates to about 150 BC. There is no MS evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that Christ quoted from the Septuigent. The more likely explanation for the conformity between Christ's words and Origen's LXX (which is what most of us use and call the Septuagint) is that Origen conformed his Greek OT readings to those given by Christ. Today we call that "reverse engineering." Rather like Scrivener did with his Greek New Testament.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Christ didn't authorize the Masoretic text. It did not come into existence in 1000AD. What he authorized was a transmitted text, of whatever language it may have been in. I am somewhat persuaded that it was the LXX but Thomas makes some arguments as to why it was not. Whichever it was, we know several things it was not: 1) a perfect copy or translation; and 2) the originals; 3) the KJV. Therefore we can deduce that something that was not perfect, not the originals, and not the KJV can be called the Word of God. I think the same thing is true today.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by DocCas:
I beg to differ. Every copy of the LXX presently extant dates to the mid 4th century or later, the oldest being Aleph and B.

I agree that the precise definition of the LXX depends on what point in history you are talking about. But we know that a Greek translation of the OT was made before Christ.

The more likely explanation for the conformity between Christ's words and Origen's LXX (which is what most of us use and call the Septuagint) is that Origen conformed his Greek OT readings to those given by Christ.

I don't agree that is the "more likely" explanation. It is "a" explanation. But the point is still that even if it is true (Origin conforming his Greek to what Christ said), Christ still said something that isn't what we would call "Masoretic". Most accept it is a "Septuagint" reading simply because it matches the Septuagint. If it wasn't the Septuagint, it doesn't make the puzzle any clearer, it even makes it more complicated.

 

[DocCas]

The idea that a text does not exist prior to the oldest extant manuscript of that text is, in my opinion, ludicrous. The Masoretic text project was begun around the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Masoretic test has enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.

Until the discovery of the Judaean Desert scrolls, the only pre-medieval fragment of the Hebrew Bible known to scholars was the Nash Papyrus (c. 150 BC) from Egypt containing the Decalogue and Deuteronomy. Now, however, fragments of about 180 different manuscripts of biblical books are available. Their dates vary between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD, and all but 10 stem from the caves of Qumran.

The most important manuscript from what is now identified as Cave 1 of Qumran is a manuscript of Isaiah. It is so close to the Masoretic text that most scholars consider it to contain few genuine variants.

The importance of the Qumran scrolls cannot be exaggerated. Their great antiquity brings them close to the Old Testament period itself--from as early as 250-200 BC. For the first time, Hebrew variant texts are extant and all known major text types are present. Some are close to the Septuagint, others to the Samaritan. On the other hand, many of the scrolls are practically identical with the Masoretic text, which takes this text back in history to pre-Christian times.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Therefore we can deduce that something that was not perfect, not the originals, and not the KJV can be called the Word of God. I think the same thing is true today.

Pastor Larry,
I agree on two out of three of the above. I will concede that something does not have to be the originals to be the Word of God. It is a well-known fact that none of the originals are extant today, nor have they been for hundreds or thousands of years. The doctrine of preservation does not claim that the original writing were preserved.

I also concede that something does not have to be the KJV to be the Word of God. It is obvious that Jesus did not read from a KJV for the fact that there was none in existence then.

My disagreement comes from the assertion that something does not have to be "perfect" to be the Word of God. I believe Scripture confirms the contrary. Please consider the following verses:

2Sam 22:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
Ps 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Ps 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
1Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. I realize there will be disagreement as to the interpretation of this verse.
James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

It is my belief that, not the KJV but the underlying texts are true to the originals. The KJV is the English translation that resulted in an unbiased translation from the texts that I feel are the preserved Word of God.

As I've stated, the Old Testament text I hold to has this history. The Daniel Bomberg edition, 1516-1517 was called the First Rabbinic Bible. Then in 1524-1525, Bomberg published a second edition edited by Abraham Ben Chayyim. This is called the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew text. Daniel Bomberg's edition, on which the KJV is based was the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This is called the Second Great Rabbinic Bible. This became the standard Masoretic text for the next 400 years. This is the text that underlies the KJV Old Testament. For 400 years, that was the Hebrew OT text. Nobody translated the OT except by using this text.
(This information is from Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literal, Textual by Harrison, Walkie, and Guthrie, 1978.)

The Greek text I hold to as true to the originals is the Textus Receptus which was basically Beza's 5th edition of 1598.
There were approximately 190 places where the KJB translators departed from Beza's 5th edition in favor of eight other sources, that is why I say "basically."

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by BrianT:
But the point is still that even if it is true (Origin conforming his Greek to what Christ said), Christ still said something that isn't what we would call "Masoretic". Most accept it is a "Septuagint" reading simply because it matches the Septuagint. If it wasn't the Septuagint, it doesn't make the puzzle any clearer, it even makes it more complicated.

I agree. The idea that there was an official Jewish translation of the OT into Greek by 72 (or 70 depending on which version of the myth you accept) Hebrew scholars, 6 from each of the 12 tribes (or if you accept the number 70 then some tribe got shorted a couple of scholars) translated the entire OT in 72 (or 70) days, producing 72 (or 70) copies when compared were completely without error is, in my opinion, simple myth! We do know there were translations of the OT into Greek, for we have MS evidence to support it, but we can't be certain of their origin nor can we say they are the LXX.

But you are correct. Christ was doing something when he quoted the OT in the New. What was He doing? Was He reading from a Greek translation of the OT? Possibly. Was he translating contemporaneously? Possibly. Will we ever know in this life? Probably not! The best we can do is speculate, but we must always remember not to become too dogmatic over our speculations. And especially, we must avoid treating our speculations as if their are facts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DocCas:
The idea that a text does not exist prior to the oldest extant manuscript of that text is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

Incidentally, I agree with you about the MT. Perhaps I was not clear. I was making a broader statement, name that the MT as we know it a product of the Masoretes, c. 1000AD. Prior to the MT, there were no vowel points in the text. Therefore, what we have has the MT is remarkably similar but still with a truckload of variants across all ancient versions, many of which are more significant than even the NT variants. A good many are pure conjecture, some with versional support and some with Hebrew support. You have the occasional difference between the Kethib and the Qere as well. . Between the printed texts, there are only teh eight or so differences that you have pointed out regularly.

And you have rightly pointed out the significance of Qumram for the study of the OT.

My point was that whatever Christ was reading, it was likely not the MT as we know it today. It may very well have been a parent Hebrew text, possibly Aramaic, or Greek (as you have suggested).

[ August 13, 2002, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by DocCas:
The idea that there was an official Jewish translation of the OT into Greek by 72 (or 70 depending on which version of the myth you accept) Hebrew scholars, 6 from each of the 12 tribes (or if you accept the number 70 then some tribe got shorted a couple of scholars) translated the entire OT in 72 (or 70) days, producing 72 (or 70) copies when compared were completely without error is, in my opinion, simple myth!

I don't think it is simple myth, but rather maybe an exaggeration. I believe a group of Jewish scholars translated the OT into Greek before Christ, and I believe it is OK (at least for practical purposes) to refer to that translation as the "Septuagint" even if we cannot guarantee it matches what we have as the "Septuagint" today. It is referred to as such throughout history, and I don't see any real reason to go against the flow.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
My disagreement comes from the assertion that something does not have to be "perfect" to be the Word of God. I believe Scripture confirms the contrary.

So by way of response, let me ask you a question. If you think it has to be perfect (and perhaps we should define what we mean by that), what caused you to settle on the 1598 and how do you explain the 8 variants that you have found from the KJV? If the 1598 was "perfect," why do you accept 190 variants in favor of other (less than perfect??) sources? Do you think the KJV should be changed to reflect the 1598?

But more to the point, what evidence leads you to accept the 1598? Why not one of the previous editions or one of the latter? What happened in 1598 to finally attain "perfection"? (Of course, you dont' need to individually answer these. I assume you can see the flow of reasoning I am pursuing.)

It seems that your acceptance of the 1598 and your rejection of all others TRs as "perfect" undermines your claim that the Word of God existed prior to 1598. Alternatively, it would seem to undermine your claim that the Word of God must be "perfect" to be teh Word of God.

Do you see my question and tension with your argument?

By "perfect" I would understand a letter by letter replica of the originals. Perhaps your idea would be different and that would make a valid point of discussion.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
My disagreement comes from the assertion that something does not have to be "perfect" to be the Word of God.

Perhaps you are using the word "perfect" in a different way that Pastor Larry is. Context can change what the "perfection" is referring to. I think Pastor Larry was referring to the idea of perfectly representing the originals in a word-for-word, textual sense. For example, consider you next statement:

It is my belief that, not the KJV but the underlying texts are true to the originals.

Can the KJV be called "the word of God" even though it isn't a "perfect" representation of the originals? Of course it can.

When Christ read from Isaiah, what he read does not match the KJV, or any text of the "Masoretic" flavor. Was what Christ read "perfect"? What are your thoughts on this?

[ August 13, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Brothers,

Thank you for the gracious spirit that you have shown in responding to my posts. I really enjoy communicating with you, although my time is limited that I can spend on here.

Let me concede one more time. I know that I am not as "scholarly" as Pastor Larry, Brian T, or DocCas. My total education on the subject of textual criticism was one semester, 20 years ago. I'm just an old-fashioned preacher trying to serve God in my little corner of the world.

It all boils down to this, I believe what I have been taught and have read in the books I have on the subject of textual criticism. I believe by faith that what I have been taught and have read is accurate.

You guys also believe what you have been taught and have read on the subject. You, like me believe that your information is accurate.

I could provide a statement by a learned man with credentials that would validate my points and you could provide a statement from a man with equal credentials to refute the point and visa-versa.

Brian T,
I do believe what Jesus read was perfect. I believe that what we have today in the form of the KJV Bible is a translation provided by a group of scholars with no other adgenda than to provide an accurate English translation of God's Word. I believe that the underlying texts I mentioned above are a true representation of the originals in that they agree with 95% of all extants writings.

I may not have my dates right or my names of texts just right but I know that God has given me peace regarding the Bible I hold dear.

If you can say the same, I say, "Praise the Lord."

God Bless You Brothers,
P.S. Please pray for us here. We begin our summer Revival tomorrow night the 14th.

 

[TomVols]

Y'all bring up an interesting point which may be grounds for a whole new topic - the definition of perfect as it relates to text criticism. There are nuances to the word that cause usages of the word to gently vary.

Pastor Bob, may God's Word be truly proclaimed during your revival and may God's people be changed forever because of God's inerrant Word.

 

[Deekay]

I think the KJV-only controversy is one of the saddest and most divisive plaguing the church today. It is one reason why I have not visited this forum as often as I intended to when I first joined. It pains my soul to see such a wasteful debate go on and on. It would be different if the KJV was orthodox and the modern versions heretical; I would be all for pointing out the doctrinal errors of the MV. But this is not the case. As pointed out before, Jesus is sinless Savior, sovereign Lord, and eternal Son of God in NIV, NASB, and ESV as well as KJV. Salvation is by grace through faith in all these translations. In fact, no theological doctrine is in question. I wish we would all just get over this and move on to something productive. But there seems to be little hope of that happening anytime soon.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I know that I am not as "scholarly" as Pastor Larry, Brian T, or DocCas. My total education on the subject of textual criticism was one semester, 20 years ago.

Then you're more scholarly than I am!

I've read some books, etc., but I have no formal education in textual criticism, and have never attended any Bible colleges.

I do believe what Jesus read was perfect.

As do I. Yet what he read was different from the Masoretic, and different from the KJV. Do you think that makes them "imperfect"? Can differing readings both be "perfect"? When you use "perfect", what are you referring to: doctrine, representation of the "originals", simply "without error", etc?

 

[GrannyGumbo]

I wish we would all just get over this and move on to something productive. But there seems to be little hope of that happening anytime soon[Deekay]

"That's just it~ until you get this issue "straightened out" (hence, straight-stick) ya won't be able to "move on".

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I believe by faith that what I have been taught and have read is accurate.

Amen, Pastor Bob 63! Thanks for your posts...they have been a great encouragement to me.

Keep standing firm!

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
I believe by faith that what I have been taught and have read is accurate.

I have to admit this statement bothers me just a bit. I believe faith is only as good as the object we place that faith in. When you say you have faith in what you have been taught, and what you have read on the subject, aren't you saying your faith is in the men who taught you or the scholarship of those who's books you read? Is faith in men really the kind of faith which is taught in the bible?

I believe, by faith, that the bible is the word of God, because the bible says so. I believe, by faith, that Christ is the Saviour, because the bible says so. The bible has been tested and proven in part for over 3500 years and in the whole for over 1900 years. So, the bible is the object of my faith. But in your case it seems to me you are saying that men are the object of your faith. Men who taught and men who wrote books about the bible. How does your position on faith differ from the Jehovah's Witnesses who have faith in the writings of Russell, Rutherford, and the other leaders of their cult?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Bob,

I hope you are not under the impression that I or anyone else here are looking down on your from a perch of superior knowledge. I know that is not my attitude and I am sure it not anyone else's. My experience with many in this discussion has been that people quite often hear only one side and buy it, hook line and sinker, without realizing that there is another side. Part of my posts address that issue.

Partly too, is that I find you to be a most reasonable man and a joy to communicate with. I do not sense in you a hostility towards others who disagree with you and I appreciate that.

In closing, I do think this matter of "perfect" is one that deserves more thought and discussion. You have reiterated in your post that you believe what Jesus read was "perfect" (or words to that effect). How is it that you define this with respect to textual criticism and the existence of variants?

Larry

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
I wish we would all just get over this and move on to something productive. But there seems to be little hope of that happening anytime soon[Deekay]

"That's just it~ until you get this issue "straightened out" (hence, straight-stick) ya won't be able to "move on".

Appears to me that Deekay is a whole lot closer to getting this issue straightened out than you are... Deekay at least sees, understands, and accepts the facts. You have demonstrated that you are not willing to do this for fear it will destroy your preconcluded ideas.

With all due respect to you, Farmer's Wife, and to a lesser extent Pastor Bob 63, you all have put your faith in a manmade doctrine that contradicts known facts. In other words, you hold to a superstition.

superstition: n : an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear

[ August 14, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Originally posted by Scott J:
With all due respect to you, Farmer's Wife, and to a lesser extent Pastor Bob 63, you all have put your faith in a manmade doctrine that contradicts known facts. In other words, you hold to a superstition.

superstition: n : an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear

Scott J, my faith is NOT in a manmade doctrine! My faith is in my LORD JESUS CHRIST!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1 (KJBible)