Questions we’re not suppose to ask

[stilllearning]

Hello preachinjesus

I apologize; I clearly remember typing out an answer to these specific question, but after an exhaustive search, it seems that somehow they must not have been posted.

Here is a little, of what I kind of remember saying.........
“.....Von Soden & Nestle-Aland, simply took advantage of the door that W&H had opened, when they challenged the Greek mss that had already been accepted by the Church.....”

Anyway, you asked.....

(1) What is your assessment of Tischendorf's success in creating textual critical solutions to support modern research?

The work of Tischendorf, was very important, to anyone who wished to replace the foundation, that our New Testament was based upon.
But it’s not important to me.
--------------------------------------------------

(2) How do you think Von Soden's textual theory differs from W&H in influencing modern textual research? Particularly the variation of the K-text from the Syrian text of W&H?

Again, Von Soden ideas(though sincere), didn’t do anything to “help the cause of Christ”.
They differed from W&H’s work, is just that: He may not have had the evil intentions that they had.
--------------------------------------------------

(3) In Metzger's influential work, how do you reconcile the significant differences between the TR and more historic reconstructions, say the Nestle-Aland version? I'm also thinking of a response along the lines of how the textual variants in both play into the equation?

Sorry, I don’t know anything about Metzger’s work.
--------------------------------------------------

(4) Most importantly, with the discovery of Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) there has been a watershed moment for textual history, how do you see the comparisons with the TR and make up for the deficiencies in the readings?

The Dead Sea Scrolls is another matter; From my understanding, that area around the dead sea, was well known as an ancient trash dump, where scribes deposited manuscripts that had errors. (Just kidding)

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, presents some interesting observations.
(a) If they were truly important to the Church, than why would the LORD allow them to remain hidden until the mid. 1900's??
(b) Some of them appear to agree with the Bible; Some people see this as a big deal, but I don’t. I didn’t need the Dead Sea Scrolls to convince me to trust the Bible.

As you can see, what some people would call a watershed moment for textual history, doesn’t seem to get me all that excited.
--------------------------------------------------
As I have said several times, I am just simple man, who loves God and His Word.

Each of us are “somewhat” free to invest our time and energy in what ever area we choose: You have chosen to study the works of these men, but I have not.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your statement on the other thread..........

“When legitimate questions are ignored and posters go to other areas to try to escape them asking them to revisit the former place is simply a point in conversation.”

I am not trying to “escape” anything.

As for “legitimate questions”, I have been asking them all the time here(concerning the shortcomings of the MV’s), and seldom get a straight answer from anyone.

I have learned to just get used to it.

 

[God's_Servant]

Again, Von Soden ideas(though sincere), didn’t do anything to “help the cause of Christ”.
They differed from W&H’s work, is just that: He may not have had the evil intentions that they had.
--------------------------------------------------

Could you please provide a full and direct quote from either B.F. Westcott or F.J.A Hort revealing these "evil" intentions

 

[stilllearning]

Hello God's_Servant

You asked........

“Could you please provide a full and direct quote from either B.F. Westcott or F.J.A Hort revealing these "evil" intentions”

This is not as hard as you might think.

You can even find a direct quotation here, in this very thread....post #54

This is from Hort:

Quote:
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous textus receptus ... think of that vile textus receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts: it is a blessing there are such early ones ...”
Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 211.

I think that I have a copy of this same book(on pdf.), but this quotation will do.
--------------------------------------------------
He had evil intentions, because his work burned, out of his hatred for the KJV.

 

[God's_Servant]

Hello God's_Servant

You asked........

This is not as hard as you might think.

You can even find a direct quotation here, in this very thread....post #54

This is from Hort:

Quote:
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous textus receptus ... (complete?) think of that vile textus receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts: it is a blessing there are such early ones ...”
Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 211.

I think that I have a copy of this same book(on pdf.), but this quotation will do.
--------------------------------------------------
He had evil intentions, because his work burned, out of his hatred for the KJV.

Okay he didn't like the TR, I see nothing evil about that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hello God's_Servant

You asked........

This is not as hard as you might think.

You can even find a direct quotation here, in this very thread....post #54

This is from Hort:

Quote:
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous textus receptus ... think of that vile textus receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts: it is a blessing there are such early ones ...”
Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 211.

I think that I have a copy of this same book(on pdf.), but this quotation will do.
--------------------------------------------------
He had evil intentions, because his work burned, out of his hatred for the KJV.

Here is the reading in context.

It does seem to prove Hort's view of the TR at least at age 23.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I agree with Wescott and Hort. Thank God they brought study of manuscripts out of the Dark Ages and thank God for N/A/A today to continue (on a better foundation, of course) this daunting task.

To say they had "evil intent" is laughable. They wanted the BEST, not the heaviest.

 

[Trotter]

There you go again, Bob... getting all logical and stuff. You ought to know by now we are only allowed to come before the altar of the TR with our hat in hand and our head bowed low...

Were it not for people like W & H I shudder to think where we would be and just how dark would be the darkness thereof.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There you go again, Bob... getting all logical and stuff. You ought to know by now we are only allowed to come before the altar of the TR with our hat in hand and our head bowed low...

Were it not for people like W & H I shudder to think where we would be and just how dark would be the darkness thereof.

I would have a hard time going that far. The Church did pretty well for 1850 years without them.

I don't base my view on Hort's personal letter at the age of 23. I don't question their motives as being 'evil'. I might even appreciate their research.

But I do question that we would be in darkness without them.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Here is the reading in context.

It does seem to prove Hort's view of the TR at least at age 23.

IMHO in context he expressed his opinion of the TR no more or less like any one of us do here although he used descriptive language that would get one banned from the BB for doing so. :laugh:

 

[Trotter]

Were it not for people like W & H I shudder to think where we would be and just how dark would be the darkness thereof.

But I do question that we would be in darkness without them.

My thought was more along the lines of those who were not willing to just accept what was handed to them and who struck out to find and explore the things that had remained untouched or lost. I would count people like Martin Luther and the Reformers as a part of this group. Without them we would still be locked in the spiritual dark ages of the Mother Church and be arguing over Latin Vulgate Only vs Douay-Rheims.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Was Hort a Baptist?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Was Hort a Baptist?

No, and neither were the men who translated the KJV.

 

[stilllearning]

Of the original 54 men chosen to translate the King James Bible, only 47 finished the more than seven-year project, which was governed by very strict rules of translation. The translators were scholarly men who were experts in the biblical languages, and they were convinced of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."

The planning of the translation project stipulated that the translators should be broken up into six panels, and each panel was given certain books of the Bible to translate. After the translations were done, a committee of 12-two translators from each of the six panels-reviewed the work based on a detailed set of guidelines that was established to ensure that the translators' personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."

And his OPINION is as valid as any other OPINION.

SL, are you going to show us which 'MVs' used 'maiden' and switched to 'virgin' because of Mrs Riplinger?

The NIV has used 'virgin' since the first edition, even the Living Bible used 'virgin.'

 

[preachinjesus]

My apologies for the delay in a proper reply, I am under a bit of a deadline on a research piece and preparation for a seminar presentation. Nevertheless, I shall prevail and give appropriate attention to the above replies. Thanks in advance for the patience.

 

[God's_Servant]

After the translations were done, a committee of 12-two translators from each of the six panels-reviewed the work based on a detailed set of guidelines that was established to ensure that the translators' personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/

But, those of the Anglican church were perfectly acceptable?

 

[Trotter]

Of the original 54 men chosen to translate the King James Bible, only 47 finished the more than seven-year project, which was governed by very strict rules of translation. The translators were scholarly men who were experts in the biblical languages, and they were convinced of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."

The planning of the translation project stipulated that the translators should be broken up into six panels, and each panel was given certain books of the Bible to translate. After the translations were done, a committee of 12-two translators from each of the six panels-reviewed the work based on a detailed set of guidelines that was established to ensure that the translators' personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/

My mama always told me, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." I guess your mama never taught you that.

You have been asked several pointed questions, but you would rather ignore them and try to prove some other point that was never asked about. That's called redirection and it is a very poor tactic to try to use... especially when everyone can scroll up and see the entire conversation.

But, those of the Anglican church were perfectly acceptable?

Exactly. Sure, the "personal eccentricities and political prejudices were not included in this new version", but no consideration was given as to the Anglican slant and interpretation of the translators or the translation itself.

 

[Deacon]

What a strange thread!

Just adding a quote from an evil co-conspirator of Hort

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King’s Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.
B. F. Westcott. A General View of the History of the English Bible (121).

Rob

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Was Hort an Anglican?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Years ago Gail Riplinger, came out with a book that pointed out all the “doctrines”, that the MV’s were attacking(the Deity of Christ, for one), and she did this by listing all the places(chapter and verse), the modern versions of her time had changed words and removed verses and passages, etc.
And it was devastating to the modern versions.

Well the publishers of these Bibles fixed her wagon good:
You see Gail had assumed, that since these were Bibles, that her book would forever be a testimony of what they were doing.

But what happened, was that when the following issues of these MV’s came out, the publishers had doctored them up.
Where “virgin” had been changed to “young maiden” in Isaiah 7:14, now it was changed back to virgin. Etc,

Could you give any evidence of this please? I know this is not true of the NIV and Living Bible because I have first editions on my shelf. Which versions started with maiden then switched because of Mrs Riplinger?