Oldest is best?

[Salamander]

so does that mean that the 1611 (1769) KJV became authoritative in 1828?

Sincerely,

An ill-meaning, ignorant, and unlearned man.

(Thought I'd save Sal the trouble of calling me a name).

No, it just means by the dedication of intelligent men that the fact was strengthened by the efforts of NW who even thought it was best to make his own translation.

I haven't called you any names, but since you insist it be that way, sorry, I still haven't concurred with you. That is your own business.

 

[Salamander]

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Mr. Noah Webster, because five years after the publication of his dictionary he introduced his revision of the AV. Below is in part what that scholar wrote pertaining to the KJV in his preface (my underscore) --

...But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points mistakes may be very injurious...​

I'm so glad you consider the words of NW to be advanced revelation and are more inspired than the word of God.

I advocate the use of his dictionary, you advocate his words in authority over the very word of God.:thumbs:

 

[Salamander]

"Then you allow men to have authority over the word of God to change it at their own will." -- Salamander, Oct. 11, 2007​

(from the topic Is this use of "bravery" in KJV unusual?, Page 5, Post #49 as his response on this forum to the use of a dictionary with a 'Bible' word)​

And as usual, you cannot see the meaning because of the words that give you the meaning.

NW's efforts were to render a more understandable Bible version according to his thinking, alone.

What you, and others are espousing is that NW was inspired of God to correct the Bible.

 

[Salamander]

:thumbs:

OK, so now I'm gonna' laugh!

Ed

The tool is not the object being worked upon either, but I won't expect you to realize that for an indeterminable amount of time.

 

[Rippon]

Sal , no one here has espoused the idea that Noah Webster's translation was inspired of God . We would no more say that than to say that the KJV ( in its many forms ) was inspired of God . Only the original autographs were inspired . Faithful translations are used by the Lord most certainly .

I would think that the 1833 would meet with your approval . It's just a shade or two ( from what I've heard ) different from Benjamin Blayney's version of 1769 .

BTW , how long have you held to your particular KJVO beliefs Sal ? Were you a Christian before your current understanding took hold ?

 

[HankD]

"Oldest is best" is not necessarily true.

Especially when it comes to hand-written copied manuscripts of the Scripture in the original langauges.

Hebrew is less problematic than Greek.

The scribal family and their copying skills is what is the utmost importance.

It is true that the "oldest" extant mss are Alexandrian.

John Burgon for one claimed that the Byzantine scribes were much more careful than their Alexandrian counterparts. The quality of the Byzantine work is of a much higher order. Byzantine mss are in much greater agreement among themselves than the Alexandrian "older" mss.

Byzantine mss come down from the original apostolic churches in the Macedonian-European areas.

Alexandrian mss descend from non-apostolic northern African churches where heresy reigned supreme (in spite of the influence of Athanasiuis).

These and several other factors must be considered when one makes a decision concerning mss families.

Age (older vs younger) is not the most important factor.

Do I use modern translations with a bent torward an alexandrian influence? Yes all the time.

But I still prefer my KJV/NKJV.


HankD

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Salamander:

... a brillaint (sic) scholar who not only spoke 20 differentlangauges (sic) but spent almost his entire life dedicated to the study of English and the Bible from all perspectives allowed him at that time...

In Response, originally posted by franklinmonroe:

I'm so glad that you think so highly of Mr. Noah Webster, because five years after the publication of his dictionary he introduced his revision of the AV. Below is in part what that scholar wrote pertaining to the KJV in his preface (my underscore) --

...But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points mistakes may be very injurious...​

Originally posted by EdSutton: (who can't get in trouble on the BB by whatever he may happen to think, but only by what he does actually post)

Is it okay if I laugh, now??

Naah, I'll be nice!

Originally posted by Salamander:

... The Noah Webster 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language has to be the greatest tool in deciding the intent of God's word as well as what English means...

In response, originally posted by franklinmonroe, who was quoting Salamander:

"Then you allow men to have authority over the word of God to change it at their own will." -- Salamander, Oct. 11, 2007

(from the topic Is this use of "bravery" in KJV unusual?, Page 5, Post #49 as his response on this forum to the use of a dictionary with a 'Bible' word)​

Originally posted by EdSutton, in response to the head-to-head public posts between Salamander and franklinmonroe:

:thumbs:

OK, so now I'm gonna' laugh!

In response to my post, I presume, originally posted by Salamander:

The tool is not the object being worked upon either, but I won't expect you to realize that for an indeterminable amount of time.

I was not commenting on the tool, per se, but I do find it amusing when one's own words are used against them. I admit, I enjoy watching someone else open their mouth and 'change feet'.

But I also found these two additional quotes, as well. They are found in the Word of God! Maybe you have heard of them.

Originally 'posted' by God, the Holy Spirit, and Matthew?:

For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Matt. 12:43a, 37 - NJKJV)

I kinda' like seeing those quotes "in action".

"So keep them letters and cards comin' in, folks!" as the old radio evangelist used to say!

Ed

​

 

[EdSutton]

I'm so glad you consider the words of NW to be advanced revelation and are more inspired than the word of God.

NW's efforts were to render a more understandable Bible version according to his thinking, alone.

What you, and others are espousing is that NW was inspired of God to correct the Bible.

Are you here saying that the 1833 Edition of the Bible, by Noah Webster, is not the word of God?

Or only that his version is not trustworthy because it was not "done by committee"?

Also, what is the difference between Noah Webster being "inspired of God to correct the Bible", in 1833, and the revisers of1611 "being inspired of God to correct the Bible"? Should I be seeing a difference between "correct" and "correct", somehow?

FTR, I haven't been "esposing" anything, but merely asking questions of another.

[Snipped and edited by EdSutton, in order to save C4K the trouble!]

Ed

 

[Maestroh]

And So It Goes..

"Oldest is best" is not necessarily true.

True

"
John Burgon for one claimed that the Byzantine scribes were much more careful than their Alexandrian counterparts. The quality of the Byzantine work is of a much higher order. Byzantine mss are in much greater agreement among themselves than the Alexandrian "older" mss.

The question, of course, is not only a problem with Burgon's methodology of stating OPINIONS as though they were proven FACTS - how does he know what the Byzantine copiers did to make such an asinine generalization?

And of course LATER mss. are in more agreement - this is the same in all text-types generally speaking. The REAL question, of course, is why we count the majority ONLY of Greek mss - and WHY a mss. from the fifteenth century is given equal weight in determining the orignal as a second century mss. Burgon's method is little more than nose counting.

"
Byzantine mss come down from the original apostolic churches in the Macedonian-European areas.

Alexandrian mss descend from non-apostolic northern African churches where heresy reigned supreme (in spite of the influence of Athanasiuis).

And the FACT that the FIRST known possessor of the Byzantine text was an Arian heretic named Asterius pretty much turns this argument on its head, doesn't it?

 

[Bluefalcon]

It's interesting that the most Alexandrian Father, Origen, is about 77% Alexandrian in 1 Corinthians. So even the most Alexandrian Father in the 3rd century is still 25% removed from what most consider the best texttype. Origen is about 60% Byzantine in 1 Corinthians. The fascinating thing about this is that Aleph B C are only about 50% Byzantine there. This means that Origen is about 10% more Byzantine than the best Alexandrian MSS. Origen did the best he could with the MSS he had. But why is Origen more Byzantine than the best Alexandrian MSS? Why does his text admit more Byzantine readings than the Alexandrian MSS themselves? If anything, Origen, being earlier than the best Alexandrian MSS, should be less Byzantine than the Alexandrian MSS, not more.

And to point to an actual example of scribal habits and archetypes, I wonder, when it is generally assumed that the combination of Aleph B C L present the oldest form of text attainable (i.e., the early 2nd century if not the autograph itself), why is the Byzantine text deemed to be even older by everyone in Mt 27:49, where the MSS in question insert 13 words borrowed from Jn 19:34? And here I repeat again, the oldest is the best, and in this case it is very clear, the Byzantine Consensus represents the oldest form of text.

 

[Salamander]

Sal , no one here has espoused the idea that Noah Webster's translation was inspired of God . We would no more say that than to say that the KJV ( in its many forms ) was inspired of God . Only the original autographs were inspired . Faithful translations are used by the Lord most certainly .

I would think that the 1833 would meet with your approval . It's just a shade or two ( from what I've heard ) different from Benjamin Blayney's version of 1769 .

BTW , how long have you held to your particular KJVO beliefs Sal ? Were you a Christian before your current understanding took hold ?

Ok, so have it your way. But one problem, who inspires you to say that the world can only have the inspired words of God in the original autographs?

I beg to differ that only the originals are inspired. God is bigger than your box you try to put Him in and according to what you believe, has provided His inspired word in many versions, but then that would make even the brightest lightbulb to flicker in confusion.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Salamander:
In Response, originally posted by franklinmonroe:Originally posted by EdSutton: (who can't get in trouble on the BB by whatever he may happen to think, but only by what he does actually post)Originally posted by Salamander: In response, originally posted by franklinmonroe, who was quoting Salamander:Originally posted by EdSutton, in response to the head-to-head public posts between Salamander and franklinmonroe:In response to my post, I presume, originally posted by Salamander:I was not commenting on the tool, per se, but I do find it amusing when one's own words are used against them. I admit, I enjoy watching someone else open their mouth and 'change feet'.

But I also found these two additional quotes, as well. They are found in the Word of God! Maybe you have heard of them.

Originally 'posted' by God, the Holy Spirit, and Matthew?:I kinda' like seeing those quotes "in action".

"So keep them letters and cards comin' in, folks!" as the old radio evangelist used to say!

Ed

The only problem you have is that you're trying to make my words say something they don't.

Straight from the heart straight towards the heart without any avenue or media to cloud the intent.

 

[Salamander]

Are you here saying that the 1833 Edition of the Bible, by Noah Webster, is not the word of God?

Or only that his version is not trustworthy because it was not "done by committee"?

Also, what is the difference between Noah Webster being "inspired of God to correct the Bible", in 1833, and the revisers of1611 "being inspired of God to correct the Bible"? Should I be seeing a difference between "correct" and "correct", somehow?

FTR, I haven't been "esposing" anything, but merely asking questions of another.

[Snipped and edited by EdSutton, in order to save C4K the trouble!]

Ed

My questions challenge your intellect. My answers are straight forward and reveal your ideals.

NW used his notes to try and substancaite what he later produced but yet his own dictionary contradicts some of his own statements, but when taken in context, the 1611 KJB doesn't have the fallicies of men incorporated into their text.

I doubt you'll understand this, not for a long time anyway. You decide on how long that is to be?

 

[EdSutton]

The only problem you have is that you're trying to make my words say something they don't.

Straight from the heart straight towards the heart without any avenue or media to cloud the intent.

Not at all. I have not tried to make your words say anything at all. I have merely quoted them, here. Blame what they may or may not say on yourself, not me.

Your intent (elsewhere stated in so many words which I will not bother to dig up, at this minute), is that the so-called KJV (note you do not say "which" edition of the KJV) is "the word of God" and other versions are not the word of God, but may perhaps "contain"(some parts of) the Word of God. That is nothing more or less than merely re-stated "neo-orthodoxy", albeit from a different angle than what is usually seen.

My views are entirely orthodox, in contrast to "neo-orthodoxy". Not to mention they are also in line with both the letter of and the spirit of this forum, as posted on the BB, one the rules which I will thoughtfully quote for you (since I like to be so helpful), since you do not seem to be completely aware of what you have agreed to, as a member of the Baptist Board.

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:
</font>

• The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.</font>
• The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.</font>

I seem to recall some mentioning, or at least implying, other versions are/were making an attempt at "correcting" the Bible.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

My questions challenge your intellect. My answers are straight forward and reveal your ideals.

NW used his notes to try and substancaite what he later produced but yet his own dictionary contradicts some of his own statements, but when taken in context, the 1611 KJB doesn't have the fallicies of men incorporated into their text.

I doubt you'll understand this, not for a long time anyway. You decide on how long that is to be?

I wonder who gave you the insight and ability to challenge my (or any other's, for that matter) 'intellect'? I certainly have not claimed any ability to challenge any one else's. And I don't recall mentioning before what my 'intellect' is or is not, or could possibly even be or not be.

But I did somehow manage to achieve grades good enough to pass and graduate grade school and high school, and receive a B.A. in college, FTR. So only now do you and everyone else know the same thing that I know about my own intellect, or lack of the same.

BTW, how do you know what are my "ideals", either?

Oh yeah, one more thing. How do you know the "fallacies of men" are not in any way incorporated into the 1611 KJV? I don't recall seeing that claim about the translators in any of the text of the KJV (of any edition), nor that claim in the words of the translators of the KJV aboput the KJV, and I have read every word of the Introduction and the "To the reader", which is something I have also done with some (but not all) other versions (and editions) of the Bible, as well. Did I somehow overlook it?? I did notice these statements, however.

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so.

(Excerpts from "The Translators to the Reader", the Preface affixed to the version of MDCXI, dedicated to James)

'Nuff said, in their own words, not those that be yours or mine!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

My questions challenge your intellect. My answers are straight forward [Snipped]
... but when taken in context, the 1611 KJB doesn't have the fallicies of men incorporated into their text.

I doubt you'll understand this, not for a long time anyway. You decide on how long that is to be?

One more thing:

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. (op. cit.)

Hmmm! Marginal readings?? Necessary?? Did someone change this from the 1611 version??

Ed

 

[Bluefalcon]

The oldest demonstrable reading is the best and original reading, plain and simple. All rules of textual criticism are based on this principle.

 

[DJ N'LyTe]

KJV is best

The other translations are good translations of the wrong text. Their translated from the Alexandrians who were the latter day Jehovah's witness's they took the bible and changed it and added and subtracted as they seen fit to make it mean what they wanted. check out this video on different translations its only about 6 minutes but gives a quick history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ykbnIQocq0 GOD BLESS

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry, Dr Hovind is hardly a noted textual scholar.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The other translations are good translations of the wrong text. Their translated from the Alexandrians who were the latter day Jehovah's witness's ...

Mormon JWs! What will they think of next?